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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real semantic context: a late-arriving response can no longer apply a proposal, and existing pages are left intact. That clarifies the blast radius of a destructive action, which the annotations alone do not convey. It stops short of saying whether cancellation is reversible or what happens if the job already completed.

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, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds something distinct: the action, the late-response consequence, and the page-integrity guarantee. No filler, though the French/English mismatch with the rest of the tool surface is a minor structural wart.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the destructive outcome description is adequate. What is missing is the practical prerequisite: how an agent obtains the required jobId and what a failed or already-finished cancellation looks like.

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 0% and the single jobId parameter (uuid) is explained nowhere. The description never says where a job id comes from (e.g., get_site_project_job or list_jobs) or how to handle an invalid or finished job id, so the only required parameter is left entirely uninterpreted.

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?

"Annuler un travail de génération" gives a verb plus a resource, but the resource is described generically as a "generation job" without naming the site project, which the tool name carries instead. The description is also in French while the name, title, schema, and sibling tools are English, adding a small interpretation step.

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?

There is no guidance on when to cancel versus when to let a job finish, and no mention of the siblings that naturally pair with it, such as get_site_project_job (to check status before cancelling) or list_jobs. The only usage-adjacent statement is a post-hoc outcome, not a when-to-use rule.

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