Cancel job

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

Adds real behavior beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: ownership is verified before cancellation, and a confirm=true flag gates the action. It does not state whether the cancellation is reversible or what happens on confirm=false, but the confirmation gate is valuable context the annotations don't provide.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the two key invocation constraints. No wasted words.

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 destructive, annotation-covered mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the ownership check, the confirm gate, and the jobId/project fallback logic. Adequate; only the outcome/return behavior and profile handling are left unstated.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the conditional relationship between jobId and project (jobId optional only when project scope given, else latest job). Only 'profile' goes undocumented, and that is covered by the schema description.

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+resource ('Cancel one of YOUR jobs') with a scoping qualifier (ownership verified first). It implicitly distinguishes itself from hold/release/worker_cancel siblings by emphasizing ownership and project scoping, but never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: confirm=true is mandatory, and jobId is optional only when a project scope is supplied (in which case the latest job in that project is cancelled). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over ris_hold_job or ris_worker_cancel.

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