cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one meaningful nuance: 'Request cancellation' implies the cancellation is asynchronous or best-effort rather than an immediate guaranteed teardown. However, it omits permissions required, what happens to partially produced output, and whether the action is reversible, so the disclosure is thin for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier 'queued or running' is placed before the object of the verb. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a mutation tool that needs more behavioral detail.

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 described. But against zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description omits permissions, cancellation semantics, and failure modes for a destructive-ish operation on a live job, which is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across both required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Exact ... job' hints that job_id is matched literally rather than by prefix, and project_root is unexplained (path vs. identifier), leaving the agent to guess at both parameter formats.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('cancel ... production job') and narrows scope to 'queued or running' jobs. It is distinguishable from siblings like resume_job and get_job_status by implication, but it never names them or otherwise explicitly contrasts its role in the job family, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to choose this over get_job_status or resume_job, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the embedded state constraint ('queued or running'), which is a precondition rather than usage direction, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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