cancel_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the cancel action but does not explain side effects (e.g., immediate vs. graceful, impact on jobs), required permissions, or reversibility. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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?

At only 4 words, the description is extremely concise but lacks necessary detail. While brevity is valued, the minimal content fails to convey important context, making it barely adequate.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values or confirmation behavior. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect after cancellation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (project_id and pipeline_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Cancel a running pipeline' uses a specific verb (cancel) and resource (pipeline) that clearly states the action. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like list_pipelines, retry_pipeline, and trigger_pipeline.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retry_pipeline, cancel_job). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, permissions, or situational use.

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