cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: completed pieces survive cancellation and remain readable. It omits other behaviors an agent needs — whether cancellation is idempotent, what happens to in-progress segments, whether it errors on an unknown or finished job_id, and what the call returns.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary action stated first and the consequential side effect second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of behavioral detail; it covers the headline effect and partial-result retention but leaves the required job_id undocumented and says nothing about return value or failure modes. Adequate to call correctly in the happy path, incomplete around the edges.

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 single parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions job_id, its expected format, or where to obtain it (presumably list_jobs or get_job_status). That is the main gap in an otherwise terse definition.

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?

"Stop a transcription job" gives a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence distinguishes this from a pure abort by naming get_job_result as the path to already-finished output. An agent can pick this over get_job_status or list_jobs without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this to halt an in-flight transcription, and read partial output via get_job_result afterwards. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g. behavior when the job already completed or is already cancelled), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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