Cancel Fine-Tuning Job

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'running' state constraint, which is useful context, but does not disclose what happens after cancellation, whether it requires specific permissions, or if it can be undone.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, annotations present, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it states the action and the target state of the job. Minor missing context, such as whether the job remains visible after cancellation, keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, and the only parameter 'job_id' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('fine-tuning job') with a state qualifier ('running'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like start_fine_tuning_job, get_fine_tuning_job, list_fine_tuning_jobs, and cancel_batch_job.

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 usage by specifying 'running', indicating it should be used only for active jobs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name an alternative or exclusion.

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