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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: running jobs transition to cancellation_requested for worker acknowledgement, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to the job's data, or any permission requirements. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral detail. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit usage guidance.

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 cancellation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but lacks details like error conditions, idempotency, or what happens after cancellation_requested. The sibling context (resume_harness_job, run_harness_job) suggests a job lifecycle, but the description doesn't fully explain where cancellation fits. It's adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain the relationship between jobId and workspaceId or the format of the reason. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Cancel a pending harness job') and the resource ('harness job'). It distinguishes the tool's scope by specifying that only pending jobs can be canceled, and it notes the transition to cancellation_requested for running jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like resume_harness_job or plan_harness_job, though the verb 'cancel' is distinct enough.

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 usage: cancel a pending harness job, and running jobs transition to cancellation_requested. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or what to do if a job is already running vs pending). The context is clear for a cancellation operation, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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