Cancel a job

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing what actually gets terminated (the spawned browser/ffmpeg process) and what survives (files already written), which is real context an agent cannot read off the annotations. It stops short of saying whether the job lands in a cancelled state or how cancelling a completed job behaves.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the destructive effect is front-loaded and the side-effect caveat follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and an output schema present, the description needs only to explain the action and its side effects, which it does. The minor gap is terminal state and error behavior for an already-finished or unknown job_id.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from a makersmcp tool return. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Stops a running job") and adds the concrete effect ("the browser or ffmpeg it started"), which is far more informative than the title's restatement. The verb alone separates it from list_jobs and wait_for_job, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the note that already-saved files persist hints at a trade-off, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. wait_for_job, no statement about cancelling a job that already finished, and no preconditions. An agent can infer the purpose but gets no routing guidance.

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