cancel_job

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

The description explicitly warns that 'items already processed are NOT rolled back', which is a critical behavioral caveat beyond what the annotations convey. It further advises confirming with the user and reading the receipt to assess partial effects. This is valuable transparency for a mutation-like tool with potential side effects.

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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second delivers the essential warning and recommended follow-up. Important caveats are front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one simple required parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the action, applicable states, non-rollback behavior, and even suggests reading the receipt to verify what happened. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, id, with 'The job id', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning such as id format, source, or validation rules. Since the schema already covers the parameter, a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a clear resource ('a queued or running asynchronous operation'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like wait_for_job and resume_job by focusing on the queued/running state and the 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?

The phrase 'queued or running' sets a clear precondition for when to use the tool, implying it is not for completed operations. It also gives procedural advice: confirm with the user and read the receipt afterward. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like wait_for_job or resume_job, leaving the contrast implicit.

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