cancel_agent_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It does not say whether cancellation is irreversible, whether the job's partial output is retained or discarded, what happens if the job already finished, or what the tool returns. For a destructive lifecycle operation this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and its target are stated immediately.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It is still missing the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a cancellation (irreversibility, effect on job output, behavior on already-completed jobs).

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% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema ('The job ID to cancel.'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g. obtaining the ID from list_active_jobs) beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Cancel a running background subagent job'), which an agent can distinguish from the read-oriented siblings check_agent_job and list_active_jobs by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scope, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the job must still be running), and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools such as check_agent_job. The word 'running' hints at a precondition but leaves it to inference.

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