cancel_jobs

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior with destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context that only queued or running jobs are affected, but does not mention what happens to already completed or canceled jobs.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core behavior without filler. Every word earns its place and the scope is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description covers the basic call. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to cancel_job and does not enrich the job_ids parameter semantics, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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%, and the description does not explain the job_ids parameter beyond the word 'selected'. The schema itself shows an array of strings, but the description provides no additional meaning such as how IDs are obtained, uniqueness requirements, or batch size limits.

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 action (cancel), resource (jobs), and scope (selected queued or running jobs). It distinguishes the operation from starting or listing jobs, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cancel_job.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this plural cancel_jobs versus cancel_job, or when cancellation is appropriate versus starting or checking jobs. The context that only queued or running jobs are eligible is present, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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