antigravity_job_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action is destructive ('cancel or kill') but does not elaborate on consequences such as irreversibility, what happens to the job's results, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, the resource, and the parameter in a compact format, which is ideal for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, for a destructive operation, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., job not found, already completed) and post-cancellation behavior. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter with 100% description coverage ('The Job ID to cancel.'). The tool description adds nothing beyond that – it merely says 'by ID', which is already implied. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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/kill) on a specific resource (ongoing background Antigravity job) and the identifier (by ID). It is distinct from sibling tools like antigravity_job_status (status) and antigravity_job_result (retrieving results), making its purpose 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?

The description implies the intended use case: cancelling jobs that are still ongoing. It explicitly conditions the action on 'ongoing' jobs, which helps an agent avoid using it on completed jobs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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