cancel_compile_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the cancellation is durable (persisted, not best-effort) and it fences the worker so no result is published. It does not say whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the job already completed, or what authorization is required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the fencing consequence follows. Every word 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the fencing/durability semantics are a real addition. But with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves parameter meaning and error/idempotency behavior undocumented for a state-mutating 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% for both required parameters, and the description never mentions job_id or semantic_store. Their names are largely self-explanatory, but nothing clarifies format, scope, or whether semantic_store must match the job's originating store.

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 a compile job') plus the collateral effect on the worker. It is clearly distinguishable from compile_semantic_revision and reconcile_compile_jobs by verb alone, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. job must be pending/running), and no mention of alternatives such as reconcile_compile_jobs for cleaning up already-finished jobs. The only usage signal is the implicit 'cancel things you want cancelled'.

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