agy_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful outcome semantics (signalled=True if the worker was alive, False if unknown or already finished), but omits permissions, whether cancellation is guaranteed or graceful, and side effects.

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 tightly written sentences with purpose front-loaded and outcome details second. No filler; every sentence contributes.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted identifier forms, and outcome meaning. It lacks permission/ownership requirements and prefix-ambiguity behavior, but is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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% and the sole job_id parameter has no schema description. The description compensates by stating it accepts a full job_id or a unique prefix, adding important input semantics, though it does not address prefix-ambiguity handling.

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 ('Signal ... to stop') and resource ('running job'), and explains accepted identifier forms. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like agy_status or agy_read, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as agy_status; the only context is the implied 'running job' condition. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, matching the calibration example for a tool that lacks usage guidance.

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