seerr_cancel_job

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' mostly restates the annotation without adding significant new behavioral context. It does not disclose what cancellation entails, whether it is reversible, or any side effects beyond modifying the instance.

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 one concise sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by a clearly useful write-warning. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter cancel operation, the description covers the core purpose and write nature. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. While it omits details about job states or irreversibility, the tool is straightforward enough that the description is mostly complete.

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 schema has a single required 'job_id' string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description says 'a specific job' but does not explicitly explain that job_id is the identifier to cancel, nor does it describe how to obtain or format the ID. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly.

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 ('Cancel') and the target ('a specific job'), with a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seerr_run_job and seerr_schedule_job by the explicit 'Cancel' verb, which unambiguously indicates a different operation.

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 implies usage when a user wants to stop a specific job, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusion cases. There is no mention of the related run_job or schedule_job tools.

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