actiond_job_cancel

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses that it validates job state, refuses terminal jobs, transitions the job to cancelled, and keeps the record for later review. This gives a clear picture of side effects and error behavior, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 concise—two sentences that convey the action, state validation, error handling, and post-success behavior. No redundant or verbose language; every clause adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what happens on success (transition to cancelled), on refusal (explanatory error), and how to retrieve the record later (actiond_action_get). It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already provides a 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter ('Job ID to cancel'). The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning to this parameter, so the 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 clearly states the tool cancels a pending or running CI/CD job, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the alternative retry tool and the action_get tool for review, 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 explicitly states when to use this tool (pending or running jobs) and when not to (terminal jobs like done/failed, as it refuses them). It also points to the sibling tool actiond_job_retry for re-queuing cancelled/failed jobs, providing clear guidance on alternative use.

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