cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions sending SIGTERM, which implies process termination, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., job state changes, irreversibility, resource cleanup, or impact on other jobs).

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?

The description is a single sentence (9 words) that efficiently conveys the core action. No extraneous text; every word contributes to purpose.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (cancelling a job), the description omits important context: is it reversible, what happens to output, does it require ownership? The output schema exists but doesn't cover behavioral context. The minimal description leaves gaps for an AI agent to make safe decisions.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema. The parameters job_id and output_dir are not described; the agent must infer their purpose from names alone, risking misunderstanding (e.g., output_dir role is unclear).

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 clearly states the verb 'cancel', the resource 'running job', and the method 'SIGTERM'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job_status or list_jobs by indicating an action that modifies the job state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_job_status or the start_* tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to cancel a job.

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