cancel_job

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only queued or running jobs can be cancelled, but says nothing about whether the cancellation is reversible, what happens to partial output, or that job_id must reference an active job.

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?

One short sentence, fully front-loaded, with no filler. It is efficient, though at the cost of omitting detail rather than saying too much.

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 tool has one required parameter. Still, for a state-changing action the description omits what the cancellation does to the job and its artifacts, leaving the agent slightly under-informed.

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 0% and the sole parameter job_id has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description does not compensate for this gap; however, job_id is largely self-evident from context, so it is not a total void.

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 ('Annule un job') and adds scope ('en file ou en cours'), which is more precise than the name alone. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as job_status or diagnose_job, 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?

Usage is implied by the scope clause — this is for jobs that are queued or running, not finished ones. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., checking job_status first), and no prerequisites stated.

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