agy_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return semantics (`success=True, signalled=True` vs `signalled=False`) and the condition for each outcome (worker alive vs unknown/finished), going beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant wording. Every word adds value, including the return-value details.

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 simple one-parameter cancellation tool with an output schema available, the description provides key behavioral and return information. It lacks broader context like prerequisites or side effects, but the simplicity of the operation makes it reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, `job_id`. The description indirectly references the job but does not explain what format `job_id` should take or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but more explicit guidance would improve the score.

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 tool's action ('Signal a running job to stop') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like agy_status, agy_read, and agy_continue by focusing on cancellation.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you want to stop a running job. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to alternative tools like agy_continue or agy_purge.

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