Cancel Perch job

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: cancellation kills the whole process tree, not just the job record. It does not say whether the call errors on a completed job or whether it waits for termination, and idempotentHint=true is left unexplained.

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 zero filler; the action and target come first and the parenthetical scope detail is placed right where it is needed.

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, no-output-schema tool with an undocumented parameter, the description is thin: no return behavior, no handling of already-finished or nonexistent jobs, no source for job_id, and no note that repeated calls are safe despite idempotentHint=true.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage (just a string with minLength 1), so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about job_id. It does not state where a job_id comes from (presumably the delegate_to_perch response) or whether a name or prefix could be passed.

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?

"Kill a running delegated Perch job" gives a specific verb (kill) and a specific resource (a delegated Perch job), and "(process tree)" scopes what kill means. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling status/delegate tools, though it never names them 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as checking perch_job_status first. The only guidance is implied by the word "running," which hints the job must be active, but nothing says what happens if it already finished.

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