edf_cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavioral value beyond that by clarifying this is a cooperative request rather than an immediate kill, that no further lookups start, and that already-started answers are retained. It does not address whether the call can be safely repeated (idempotentHint=false) or the eventual job state, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the behavioral consequence second. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs (request semantics, no new work started, partial results kept) and its safety profile is covered by annotations. Missing only the post-call state/return expectations.

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 the single 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden; it implies the id identifies a job but adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond that. Partial compensation only.

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 (cancel) and resource (job) with an ownership qualifier ('owned by this server'), which makes it clearly distinct from sibling readers like edf_get_job and edf_list_jobs. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action is 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?

Usage is implied by the action itself (stop a running job), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note about what happens if the job has already finished, and no mention of alternatives such as letting a job complete or re-launching.

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