batch_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: completed results are preserved ('keep successful results unchanged'), implying partial, non-destructive cancellation. It does not say whether in-flight jobs are killed mid-execution, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key side effect. No filler.

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?

The output schema handles return values, and the description covers what is affected and what is left intact. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the absence of any statement about irreversibility, permissions, or async/partial-failure behavior leaves real 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 coverage is 0% for the single required batch_id, and the description only alludes to it via 'in a batch'. It never clarifies whether batch_id is a name, UUID, or handle, nor where an agent should obtain one, so the sole parameter remains underspecified.

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 (cancel) and a precise scope (active/queued work in a batch), which distinguishes it from a broad destructive operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling job_cancel, so the boundary between cancelling one job vs. a whole batch is left to inference.

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?

'Active/queued work' implies the relevant state condition for use, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over job_cancel, whether it can be used on a completed batch, or any prerequisites.

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