Cancel local generation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the cancellation propagates to all pollers, and cleanup fences/reaps run before the job reaches terminal state, which affects sequencing expectations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The 'fences/reaps' jargon is terse to the point of being slightly opaque, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Return values need not be described since an output schema exists, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. The description supplies the multi-poller scope and pre-termination cleanup sequence, leaving only alternative-tool routing unaddressed.

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 100% with three documented parameters (job_id, context_id, capability_token), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format, ownership, or validation detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: cancel a local generation job. The phrase 'for all pollers' scopes the effect and separates it from merely reading a result via local_generation_result or local_inference_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Explicitly cancel' implies the use case (deliberate termination, as opposed to implicit teardown such as local_context_release), but the description never states when NOT to use it or which alternative tool to prefer. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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