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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description meaningfully enriches this by explaining exactly what is destroyed or preserved: unstarted items never run, finished items keep results, running items finish first, and the job moves through `cancelling` to `cancelled`. It also states irreversibility and that the job object is returned.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then spends its remaining length on high-value operational details. Every clause carries useful semantic information about item states or reversibility, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that the job object is returned. It covers mutation behavior, irreversibility, item-level outcomes, and job-state transitions, which is complete for a one-parameter destructive batch action.

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 single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: cancel a batch job. It also specifies the exact item-level effects and resulting job state, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling batch operations like retry, close, or add_items without opening their schemas.

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 explains the consequences of cancelling but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spicrawl_batch_close or spicrawl_batch_retry. Usage is implied by the operation name and the note that resubmission is needed to run URLs again, but there is no direct routing guidance.

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