Source Ingest Cancel

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: cancellation is a request that the owner only acknowledges once the bounded parser has joined, and a successful request does not prove the native process stopped. This async/settlement nuance is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core semantic (cancellation without false success promotion) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the phrasing is somewhat abstract jargon that marginally reduces immediate clarity.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key missing nuance about asynchronous acknowledgment; only the absence of explicit usage/alternative guidance leaves a small gap for a tool that sits near job_cancel and research_web_cancel.

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 there is a single parameter (job_id) fully documented as the 'Durable source ingestion job ID'. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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 names a verb ('Request cancellation') and references an 'unfinished extraction,' but never plainly states that it cancels a source-ingestion job, leaning on the tool name to carry the resource. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling 'job_cancel' or 'research_web_cancel'. The purpose is inferable but not stated outright.

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 guidance, no prerequisite (such as the job needing to be in a cancellable state), and no routing to alternatives like job_cancel for generic jobs. The second sentence hints at timing but frames it as behavior, not as a usage rule.

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