job_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. 'Request cancellation' hints that cancellation may be asynchronous or advisory rather than immediate, but the description never confirms whether it is idempotent, what happens for an already-completed/unknown job, whether permissions are needed, or whether the request can be rejected.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail scored elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a state-mutating job-control tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description should say whether cancellation is immediate or a request, and whether it can fail against finished jobs. It leaves too much undefined.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single job_id parameter, but it says nothing about its format or where to obtain it (e.g., from mesh_generate or job_get). A bare string identifier with zero documentation on either side is a real gap.

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 (meshing job), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling job_get or clarify the scope of 'meshing job' relative to the broader job family, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to cancel versus inspect a job first, no prerequisites (e.g., must the job be actively running?), and no mention of the sibling job_get tool that would surface a cancellable job_id. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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