Cancel Bulk Check

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuine value beyond that by narrowing destructiveness (only pending items, running items finish normally), disclosing that refunds are deferred until the job finishes, and noting the call is free. The only gap is that it does not say what calling it on an already-finished job returns, though an output schema exists to cover return shape.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with scope, then side effects, then cost — every sentence carries information. The trailing 'Free.' is terse to the point of being cryptic but is still load-bearing for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, non-destructive-to-running-work cancellation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, refund timing, and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

There is a single required jobId with 100% schema coverage, including the exact pattern and a reference to start_bulk_check as its source. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is appropriate at full schema coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel the pending items of a bulk check') and, crucially, scopes the operation to pending items only, which separates it semantically from start_bulk_check and get_bulk_check. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it falls just below the top mark.

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 description's scope statement — you call this to stop a job's remaining work — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if the job has already finished, and no pointer to list_bulk_checks/get_bulk_check for discovering a jobId.

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