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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the state limitation and an authentication qualifier beyond the annotations. It does not detail side effects such as whether execution is stopped immediately, but with annotations covering destructiveness this is reasonably transparent.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. Every word adds clarity, and it is appropriate for a single-parameter cancellation tool.

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?

For a simple cancel operation with one well-documented parameter and annotations declaring idempotence and destructiveness, the description plus schema is nearly complete. A minor gap is that the description does not indicate what result or state change 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 fully documents the single parameter run_id as 'AgentFarm run identifier' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancels') with a clear resource ('AgentFarm run') and adds state scope ('queued or running'), making the action unambiguous. This distinguishes it immediately from sibling read/create tools like agentfarm_get_run_status and agentfarm_create_run.

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 'authenticated queued or running run' gives a clear precondition: only runs in those states are valid cancellation targets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use it, but the verb and sibling set make the appropriate context obvious.

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