cancel_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning consequences (e.g., job state changes to 'canceled', resources freed), side effects, or whether the cancellation is reversible. For a cancellation operation, this minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No extraneous words or structure issues.

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 tool's single parameter, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits details like expected job state after cancellation, whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous, and error conditions. The simplicity of the tool does not fully excuse the lack of behavioral context.

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% with the single parameter 'job_id' fully described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Job ID to cancel' already present in the schema. Since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Cancel') and the resource ('running agent job'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not clarify whether it applies only to currently running jobs or also to queued ones, which could cause ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_job_status' or 'list_jobs' by specifying cancellation intent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wake_job', 'approve_job', or 'stop_job' (if exists). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., job must be running, user must have permissions) or conditions under which cancellation might fail. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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