soundmagic_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the key side effect: cancelling a running job terminates its GPU worker. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the simple 'cancel' label, though it omits details like idempotency or error behavior.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, with the core action stated first and the critical side effect second. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 simple single-parameter cancellation tool, the description is largely complete: it names the target, states the action, and discloses the main consequence. It could add how the job_id is obtained or what happens to a queued job, but these are not critical gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 never mentions job_id, its format, or how to obtain it. While the schema labels the parameter 'Job Id', the description adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('one queued/running job'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit, status, wait, and release by indicating this tool targets existing jobs for cancellation.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a particular queued or running job needs to be cancelled. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the listed siblings.

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