Cancel project job

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful failure-mode context (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and says the return value wraps a Job model. But it does not explain cancellation semantics beyond the verb, and the '**kwargs' framing obscures the actual parameter contract.

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 first sentence is appropriately front-loaded, but the Args section is generic boilerplate that mischaracterizes the explicit schema as kwargs. The Returns and Raises sections add some value, but the structure wastes space on inaccurate parameter framing rather than documenting the real inputs.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description is far too thin for that complexity: it does not document most parameters, does not describe what happens to a running job, and does not explain pagination or scope-related inputs.

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% for 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only mentions project_id and job_id as examples under '**kwargs', leaving pagination parameters, scope, include_retried, pipeline_id, and job_variable_attributes completely unexplained. It also implies project_id and job_id are required, while the schema marks all parameters optional with null defaults.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: cancel a specific job within a project. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings such as gitlab_retry_project_job, gitlab_run_project_job, and gitlab_erase_project_job by naming the cancel action and job resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named pipeline-cancel or run-job tools.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no alternatives. It does not say when cancellation is appropriate versus retrying, erasing, or running a job, nor does it mention required permissions or job states that can be cancelled.

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