Cancel a job

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so mutation and idempotency are covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those annotations by explicitly stating it stops the process tree the job started, which clarifies the destructive scope.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core action and its scope.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main effect but omits details like whether cancellation is synchronous, what happens if the job is already finished, and what the agent should expect in the response. It is adequate but not fully specified.

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 compensate for the undocumented jobId parameter. It only says 'Stop a running job' without explaining the jobId format, where to obtain it, or whether it must reference a currently running job vs. any known job.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a clear resource ('a running job and the process tree it started'), so an agent can tell this is a cancellation tool. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like qoder_run or qoder_status, but the action is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 phrase 'a running job' implies the tool is for jobs that are currently executing, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over qoder_status or qoder_reply, nor does it mention exclusions such as completed or queued jobs.

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