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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: cancellation is asynchronous and only final once worker termination is confirmed, authorization is owner-scoped, and the job and reservation are preserved for recovery. Only the failure/already-terminal case is left unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: the action, the completion condition with recovery guidance, and the negative scope. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 the safety profile. Combined with the async completion semantics and recovery guidance, the description is nearly sufficient for a one-parameter destructive mutation; only the behavior for already-finished jobs 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 coverage is 0% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema carries no meaning on its own. The description partially compensates by indicating the id refers to the 'original' job rather than a replacement, but it does not clarify the accepted id format, source of the id, or what happens with an unknown id.

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 ('cancellation of the original motion job') and explicitly bounds the scope with 'Never starts a replacement job,' which separates it from submit_cloud_motion and resolve_cloud_motion. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the action and object are 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 description implies the precondition ('owner-authorized') and advises retaining the job and reservation for recovery, which gestures toward recover_cloud_reservation. However, it never states explicitly when to use this versus cancel_robotics_job or resolve_cloud_motion, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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