ray_job_cancel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and the fact that both submitted and running jobs are affected, but says nothing about whether cancellation is graceful or what state the job ends in.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] marker and a one-line purpose, followed by a compact args block. Every element adds information, though the args block partly restates schema property names.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: both params explained, provenance given, default behavior noted. Minor gap is the absence of any post-cancellation outcome or failure behavior.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does document both parameters: job_id with its provenance (from ray_job_list) and target as an inference target name from config with the rule to omit it for the default. Only the job_id format itself is left unspecified.

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 and resource ('Stop a submitted/running Ray job') and clarifies it works on jobs in either state. It also points to ray_job_list as the source of job ids, which helps distinguish it from the sibling that enumerates jobs, though it does not name any alternative cancellation path.

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 'submitted/running' qualifier implies the condition under which cancellation applies, and the reference to ray_job_list implies the expected workflow. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no statement of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., auth or ownership).

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