job_cancel

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the operation is idempotent, that it only requests (rather than forces) cancellation, that the job is owner-bound, and that no unfinished output is published. These are meaningful behavioral facts not captured by the annotation. It omits what to do after the request or whether cancellation is immediate.

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 lean sentences, with the primary verb and resource front-loaded and the output-publication caveat as a tight follow-up. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation-adjacent tool the description covers idempotency, ownership, and output behavior; only the post-cancellation workflow (e.g., poll job_get) is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 parameter meaning, but it only indirectly alludes to them via 'owner-bound' (suggesting workspaceId as the owner scope) and 'export job' (jobId). The names and regex patterns are fairly self-explanatory, so this is adequate but leaves explicit mapping to the tool itself.

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 gives a specific verb (cancel) and resource (asynchronous export job), with scoping qualifiers ('owner-bound', 'asynchronous') that sharpen the meaning. It implicitly contrasts with the read-oriented sibling job_get, though it never names it. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to cancel versus checking status with job_get, no preconditions, and no note on what state the job must be in. Usage must be fully inferred from the single sentence.

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