Stop a job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the write-scope requirement, which is genuine value beyond annotations, but it omits what stopping does to the job's state, whether it is reversible, or whether partial results are preserved.

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 terse sentences with zero filler; the action and the auth requirement are both front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the write-scope note covers the main implicit prerequisite for this mutation. Only the behavioral consequences of stopping a job remain unstated, which is a minor gap for a simple action tool.

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?

There is a single parameter 'id' that the schema fully documents at 100% coverage, so the description need not elaborate. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully-covered single-parameter tool.

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 combination ('Stop a running job') that is instantly distinguishable from siblings like jobs_run or jobs_continue. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'Stop a running job' implies the usage condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as the job actually being in a running state, and no reference to alternatives like jobs_continue for resuming.

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