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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'request' and 'owned,' implying a scoped, possibly asynchronous cancellation. It does not describe side effects, idempotency, or how to confirm cancellation, but the core destructive signal is already covered by annotations.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and it places the core action and scope front and center.

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?

The schema and annotations make the basic call viable, but with no output schema and a destructive operation, the description does not mention post-call behavior such as verifying cancellation via job_status or whether the request is guaranteed.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, including the token fallback guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and resource ('one owned Astrologos job'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This also distinguishes it from siblings like job_status, job_result, and run.

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 context is clear: use this when you want to cancel an owned Astrologos job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage is not in doubt.

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