Cancel Search Job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the job must be 'running' and 'started by this MCP server process,' but does not explain behavior for already-completed jobs, failure modes, or the destructive nature (stopping a search). This is a significant gap for a cancel operation.

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, well-structured sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key action and scope. It contains no unnecessary words and is easily parsed.

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 cancel operation, the description covers the essential scope (running jobs, server process), but it does not address edge cases like canceling a non-running job or what the result/response looks like. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on post-cancel state or errors would improve completeness, but the tool is inherently simple.

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 already provides 100% coverage for jobId, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. The description references 'search job' but does not elaborate on jobId formats or provenance beyond the schema's own field 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?

The description clearly states the tool cancels a running Sumo Logic search job, specifying both the resource and the action. It also adds scoping with 'started by this MCP server process,' distinguishing it from other search-related tools like sumo_get_search_status or sumo_search_logs.

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 description implies when to use this tool by referencing 'running' jobs and the process boundary, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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