cancel_study

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses stopping trials and terminating containers, but omits details about reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether results are preserved).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite an existing output schema, the description does not hint at return values or confirmation. Missing context about error states, idempotency, or whether partial cancellation is possible. Adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only says 'by its ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name 'study_id'. No format, validation, or example is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Cancel', the resource 'training study', and the specific actions 'stop the active trials' and 'terminate the executor containers'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'launch_training' or 'get_study_details'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use only for 'running' studies, but does not explicitly state when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., check study state via 'get_study_details'), or that the action is irreversible.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.