ouroboros_cancel_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Request cancellation' hints that the operation may be asynchronous, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or how to check the outcome. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff, which is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity. However, it omits important contextual information, so it is not maximally effective as a standalone resource.

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 the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not mention that cancellation may be asynchronous, how to verify cancellation, or how it differs from cancel_execution. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (job_id) with a helpful description ('Job ID returned by a start tool'). Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Request cancellation') and the resource ('a background job'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ouroboros_cancel_execution, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ouroboros_cancel_execution, or how it relates to job lifecycle tools (job_status, job_wait). The description does not specify preconditions or expected use cases beyond the obvious cancellation context.

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