cancel

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the safety-gate restriction on scancel --all, which is real behavioral context an agent needs. It still doesn't say whether the cancelled job is terminated immediately or irreversibly, or what permissions/connection are required, but the annotation layer covers the basic safety profile.

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 clauses with no filler; the action and its restriction are front-loaded. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing present is wasteful.

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. However, for a mutation tool with zero schema coverage, the definition omits the 'connection' parameter, any auth/permission notes, and whether cancellation is immediate or reversible, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It implies job_id identifies a single job ('指定作业'), but the required 'connection' parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving half the interface undocumented.

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 and resource ('取消指定作业' / cancel the specified job) and anchors it to the known scancel single-job operation, so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It is distinguishable from submit/jobs siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-not constraint: the bulk variant 'scancel --all' is blocked by a safety gate, which tells the agent this tool only handles one job at a time. No alternative tool is offered for broader cancellation, but for a two-parameter tool the usage context is adequately framed.

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