voicestudio_cancel_job

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: canceling only stops the gateway wait while backend synthesis may continue, which warns the agent the operation is partial and not a true abort.

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, each earning its place: the action, the crucial caveat, and the routing to the alternative. The key scope limitation is front-loaded immediately after the verb.

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?

No output schema exists, so return behavior needn't be explained, and the destructive/partial nature is well covered. The gap is the required job_id, which an agent cannot confidently supply from either the schema or the description.

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 sole parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about what job_id is, where it comes from, or its format. The one sentence of context is entirely behavioral, leaving the required parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a precise, non-obvious scope: "the gateway's wait" rather than the job itself. This distinction is essential given the name 'cancel_job' would otherwise mislead, and it implicitly separates this from backend abort operations.

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 routes the agent: use this to stop waiting, and use a discovered cancel/abort HTTP operation to abort backend work. That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement, though the alternative is described generically rather than by naming the sibling (e.g. voicestudio_call_api).

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