jobs_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to job outputs, required permissions, or error states. The agent has insufficient information to assess side effects.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource, fitting the tool's simplicity perfectly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate with more detail. It omits important context like job state prerequisites, what 'cancel' entails (e.g., graceful vs. forceful), and error handling. This is insufficient for reliable automated invocation.

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%, so the description's lack of parameter details is acceptable. However, the description adds no additional context beyond the schema definitions. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'managed job', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like jobs_submit, jobs_get, and jobs_purge. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jobs_purge for removing completed jobs or jobs_get for checking status. The description does not mention prerequisites, state requirements, or when not to cancel.

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