unfour.flow.cancel_run

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond them: it is a *request* (may not be immediate) and 'remote effects are not rolled back', which is important consequence information an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that still conveys the key action and the most important consequence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no statement of prerequisites (run must be in 'running' status) or how cancellation is observed, the definition is only minimally adequate for a mutation-style operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with two parameters (required runId, optional workspaceId), so the description carries the burden. It only obliquely references 'a running Flow'; it never explains what runId identifies, that workspaceId scopes the lookup, or their formats. The gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request cancellation of a running Flow'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like unfour.flow.run, unfour.flow.get_run, and unfour.flow.list_runs. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'of a running Flow' implies the trigger condition (the run must be active) but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus the alternatives, nor any exclusion such as not calling it on an already-finished run. Usage is only implied.

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