job_cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate destructiveness. It adds useful state context ('queued or running'), but does not disclose what happens after cancellation (e.g., whether state changes are permanent, or if any cleanup occurs). No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter), rich annotations (destructive, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is largely complete for basic usage. It specifies the valid target states. However, it does not describe post-cancel behavior or error scenarios, which would make it fully complete for a destructive tool.

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 does not explain jobId beyond implying it identifies the job to cancel. No format, source, or validation details are provided. With a single parameter, the meaning is inferable but the description itself adds minimal semantic value.

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' with a clear resource 'queued or running tracked job', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like job_start, job_list, and job_watch by specifying the action on existing tracked jobs.

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 states exactly when to use the tool: for jobs that are queued or running. It implies it should not be used for completed jobs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use clause. Clear context, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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