cassette_cancel_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds some useful nuance with 'cooperative' and 'persisted', but it does not disclose side effects, whether cancellation is guaranteed or reversible, auth requirements, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every qualifier ('request', 'cooperative', 'persisted') adds meaningful context, making this an appropriately concise and structured description.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient. But with no annotations and no lifecycle context, an agent is left uncertain about when cancellation applies, whether completed jobs can be cancelled, and what 'cooperative' means in practice.

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 only parameter has just a title. The description does not explicitly explain that job_id is the identifier of the target job, where to get it, or its expected format, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('request cooperative cancellation') and a specific resource ('persisted Cassette job'). No sibling tool serves the same cancellation purpose, so it is clearly distinguishable from run_job and job_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the cancellation verb and the qualifier 'persisted' suggests the job must already exist. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to other job-lifecycle tools.

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