cancel_video_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that cancellation is a request, applies only to queued or active jobs, and prevents further regeneration, but it omits permissions, idempotency, and what response or job state to expect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and eligibility scope. The second sentence adds a relevant behavioral detail without waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing important context: required permissions, whether cancellation is immediate or asynchronous, idempotency, and expected result. It covers only the core action and one side effect.

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 sole parameter, jobId, has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. Its name and uuid format make it inferable, but the description adds no meaning about where to obtain it or how it identifies the job.

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 gives a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and resource ('video job'), and scopes it to queued or active jobs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_video_job, list_video_jobs, and regenerate_video.

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?

It implies the usage condition by saying 'queued or active video job,' but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus related tools such as recover_video_job or regenerate_video. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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