cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: cancellation is limited to subsequent steps and will not revoke an accepted power request, auto power off, or restore prior state — exactly the non-obvious semantics an agent needs.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the three things the tool does not do. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving scope as the main descriptive burden — which is handled well. However, for a mutation tool with no annotation on permissions and a completely undocumented required parameter, the definition stops short of being fully self-sufficient.

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 single parameter job_id is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description; the description says nothing about what a job_id is or where to obtain it (e.g., from job_status). Only the obviousness of the parameter name keeps this above a 1.

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 names a specific verb (取消 / cancel) and the precise scope of the operation: the remaining steps of a power-on or switch job. This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like power_off or job_status, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the negative scoping ('does not revoke the accepted power request'), which tells the agent when cancel_job is the wrong tool for undoing a power request, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as wait_for_job or job_status.

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