job_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the process tree is terminated, which signals a destructive operation beyond simply changing state, but it does not state irreversibility, forcefulness, permissions, or behavior for already-completed jobs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and its most important side effect directly.

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 explained. However, for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description is only minimally complete: it omits permissions, error conditions, and whether cancellation is graceful or forced.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter. It does not mention job_id at all, including where to obtain it or what format it expects.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Cancel queued/running work') and adds the important scope that the process tree is terminated. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as batch_cancel or job_status.

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?

The description says what is cancelled but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like batch_cancel or jobs_list. Applicability to queued/running jobs is implied by the purpose sentence, but no routing guidance is provided.

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