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

Adds idempotency on terminal states, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with cancellation; no contradiction. Could mention more about partial effects or asynchronous behavior, but the key trait is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose, idempotency, and alternative are all front-loaded and concise.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the important routing and idempotency details. It is slightly light on edge cases like queued jobs or side effects, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies `job_id` as the job to cancel via the `job_*` namespace, but does not explain how to obtain or format it. Some meaning is added, but not comprehensive.

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 (cancel) and resource (in-flight job, multi-step plan) with the `job_*` namespace, clearly distinguishing it from the single-action `actionlayer_cancel`. The description tells an agent exactly what the tool operates on.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for multi-step `job_*` plans and to use `actionlayer_cancel` instead for single-action `tkt_*` tasks. This is direct routing guidance between siblings.

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