Cancel a running job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the billing consequence (unprocessed remainder refunded, completed portion still charged). It does not state irreversibility or auth requirements, but the cost semantics are a meaningful 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 short sentences with the action front-loaded. The trailing clause 'because that work was done' is mild justification, but the whole thing is tight and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation whose annotations already flag the mutation, the description covers both the action and the billing outcome. Missing only secondary details like permissions or behavior on an already-finished job, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

There is a single parameter (job_id) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description implicitly constrains it to a running job but adds no format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stops a running job,' matching the cancel_transcription name and title. It is clearly distinguishable from read/list siblings such as get_transcript or list_transcripts. It does not explicitly contrast against transcribe or estimate, but the purpose 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 rather than stated: 'a running job' signals the tool only applies to in-flight jobs and not to completed ones. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no named alternatives. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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