codex_native_cancel

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the main effect (cancel job and process tree) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or potential errors (e.g., job not found). Adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence that is concise and information-dense. No unnecessary words, structure is fine.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It provides the core action but lacks details on return behavior, error cases, or relationship to other tools. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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. It adds minimal meaning: the jobId identifies the job to cancel, but no details on format, how to obtain it, or it being required. Fails to fully explain the parameter.

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'), the resource ('a running Codex Native job'), and includes the scope ('and its app-server process tree'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like codex_native_start or codex_native_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., job must be running), conditions when cancellation might fail, or when not to use it (e.g., for completed jobs).

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