Kill job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by defining the boolean result semantics: True means a running job was cancelled, False means the job doesn't exist or already finished — which clarifies the idempotent re-kill behavior.

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 tightly written sentences: the action is front-loaded and the return-value meaning follows immediately, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 one-parameter kill tool with full annotation coverage and a declared output schema, the definition supplies what an agent needs: the action, its destructive/idempotent nature via annotations, and the boolean outcome meaning. Only minor prerequisites (e.g., permissions, whether killing is reversible) are absent.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Identifier from start.'), so the schema fully documents job_id. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Kill a background job') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling 'start'/'run'. It is clear, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling the way a 5 would.

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?

Use is implied by the name and the outcome description (cancel a running job), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_job/list_jobs to confirm a job is still running before killing it.

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