cancel_generation

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

This description provides excellent behavioral context by explaining that if a thread is running, the tool only 'requests cancellation.' It crucially informs the agent that the status will be 'cancelling' until the job finishes unwinding, which is vital information beyond what annotations provide.

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 two-sentence structure is highly efficient, front-loading the primary purpose and immediately following up with the critical caveat about background threads. There is no superfluous language.

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 that this is a destructive action (indicated by the annotation) without an output schema, the detailed explanation of the asynchronous cancellation process makes the definition highly complete for an agent deciding whether or not to invoke the 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 coverage is 0%, and the input only requires a single integer ID. The description does not elaborate on the ID format or any constraints beyond its implied use in identifying the job, maintaining the baseline '3' score.

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 clearly states the function: to cancel a 'dataset generation job.' It is specific to the generation domain, distinguishing it from other potential cancel functions in the sibling list.

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 mentions the scope of the action—canceling an 'in-progress (or pending) job.' While it does not name sibling tools to explicitly compare against, the context strongly implies it is the dedicated tool for cancelling generation tasks.

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