cancel_bake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Cooperative cancellation' is genuinely useful — it tells the agent this is a request, not guaranteed immediate termination — but it omits idempotency, what state the job transitions to, whether partial bake output survives, and permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and its scope, zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 covers return values, so the description needn't explain them. What's missing is operational context: how to obtain job_id, whether to poll get_bake_job afterward, and what happens to in-progress bake results.

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 single required parameter job_id is never described. The description does not say where the job id comes from (start_bake / get_bake_job) or what format it takes, leaving the only parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('cancel' + 'bake job') with a meaningful qualifier ('cooperative') that distinguishes it from any hard-kill semantics. It is clearly separable from start_bake/get_bake_job siblings, though it doesn't name them.

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?

The phrase 'running bake job' implies the applicable state, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the job already completed, and no pointer to get_bake_job for checking status before or after.

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