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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing exactly what is destroyed, what is refunded, and which kinds cannot be stopped plane-side. The refund semantics — credits spent vs. refunded, separation charges retained — are the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a structured kind-by-kind breakdown with consistent labels and semicolons. It is long, but nearly every clause carries distinct behavioral information; the density is justified even if a summary line would aid scanning.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, side effects, refund behavior, and terminal-state errors. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or predict consequences is missing.

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% for the single job_id parameter, so the baseline is adequate. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own note, though the per-kind taxonomy implicitly tells the agent which submit tools produce cancellable job_ids.

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 ("Cancel a queued or running job") and immediately scopes which job states are eligible. It goes further by enumerating job kinds, which lets an agent distinguish this from submission siblings like doseedo_generate_music or doseedo_bounce_session without opening a schema.

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?

Makes clear the tool applies to queued or running jobs and explains per-kind outcomes, plus notes that finished synchronous analyses return 409 already_terminal — effectively telling the agent when not to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g., doseedo_list_jobs to obtain job_id), though the schema description covers that pointer.

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