cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that cancellation is not immediate and that the job status changes only after worker confirmation, which is a key non-obvious behavioral trait. It does not cover error cases or idempotency, but the most important caveat is present.

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, lean sentence that front-loads the action and immediately follows it with the critical asynchronous caveat. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context and the crucial post-condition behavior. It lacks return value details and edge-case behavior, but the simplicity of the tool and the explicit async warning make it reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description does not explicitly define job_id or its format. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, and the description loosely implies that job_id identifies the job to cancel, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Request cancellation') and the async nature of the operation ('status changes only when confirmed by the worker'). While it does not explicitly mention 'job', the tool name and job_id parameter make the resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools by describing a cancellation action.

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 given on when to use cancel_job versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it should be used when a previously submitted job needs cancellation, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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