Job Cancel

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral burden, and it does so well by disclosing that cancellation is not always immediate: queued work is cancelled outright, while active work only receives a cooperative stop request honored at the next checkpoint. It stops short of covering idempotency, error behavior for unknown/finished jobs, or permission requirements.

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 no filler; the immediate-cancel case is stated first and the cooperative-stop nuance second, which is the correct priority order.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key operational nuance an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around what happens if the job is already finished or the ID is invalid, but the definition is broadly complete for a one-parameter cancel 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is already documented as a 'Durable video batch or window-run ID'. The description adds no format, scoping, or lookup detail beyond that, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (cancel) and resource (queued video work / jobs), and it distinguishes two operating modes: immediate cancellation of queued work versus a cooperative stop request for running work. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like job_status or source_ingest_cancel, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement, and no alternative tool is named. However, the description does implicitly scope usage by job state (queued vs. running) and by the fact that a running job is only asked to stop at the next checkpoint, which is meaningful routing information.

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