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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), so the description needn't re-explain that this mutates state. It adds the qualifier that the export must be 'running', which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about what happens to partially written output, whether cancellation is reversible, or how failures are reported.

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 and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and a required identifier that is undocumented. The description leaves out how to obtain a valid jobId, what the tool returns (e.g., updated job status), and behavior on non-running jobs — the essentials an agent needs before invoking it.

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 coverage is only 50%: projectId is documented inline, but jobId has no description anywhere. The description does not explain where jobId comes from (presumably export_status or export_projects) or what happens if a stale/unknown id is supplied, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Cancel') with a specific resource ('a running export'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like export_status, export_projects, and export_video. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'running' faintly implies a precondition, but the description never says when to call this versus export_status (e.g., to obtain a jobId or verify the job is still running) or what to do if the job already finished. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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