Window Job Cancel

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond that: running local GP jobs only yield a cancel_requested signal, and truly reliable cancellation requires the SDK. This is real behavioral disclosure, though it omits permission/prerequisite context.

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 tight clauses separated by a semicolon, front-loading the core action and then the caveat. No filler, every phrase carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the key behavioral caveat for a 1-parameter tool; the only real gap is the undocumented request_id.

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 description never explains request_id — where it comes from, or which job it identifies. With a single low-coverage parameter, the description was expected to compensate and does not, so it falls below the neutral baseline.

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 and resource (取消...窗口任务 / cancel window job) and narrows the scope to jobs that have not yet started. Sibling tools such as arcgis_pro_window_job_submit and arcgis_pro_sdk_gp_job_cancel are implicitly differentiated by the '尚未开始' precondition and the SDK fallback mention.

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?

It gives clear when-this-works guidance ('尚未开始的窗口任务') and describes the degraded behavior for already-running jobs, effectively routing the agent to the SDK for reliable cancellation. It does not name the exact sibling tool, only 'SDK', so the routing is slightly less explicit than ideal.

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