Cancel asynchronous mission

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

Annotations only convey read-only/idempotent/destructive hints; the description adds that finished jobs are unaffected by cancellation, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not detail resulting status values or reversibility, but this is sufficient for a simple cancel operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the edge case about finished jobs is stated in the second sentence without unnecessary detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers when cancellation is valid, what happens to finished jobs, and the primary resource involved. No critical information needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, job_id, is already described in the schema as 'Job id.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('job'), and immediately scopes the action to 'running or paused' jobs. The second sentence contrasts with finished jobs, which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like mission_pause, mission_resume, and mission_status.

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?

It explicitly states when to cancel (running or paused) and when not to (finished jobs keep their final status), giving clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools, but the scope statement is enough to guide tool selection.

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