cancel_crawl

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the terminal-state no-op disclosure and clarifies the exact operation scope, giving the agent a precise expectation of side effects beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 sentences with action-first phrasing and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by defining the boundary condition, making the whole description compact yet complete.

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 single-parameter action with full schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description fully states the target states, the no-op condition, and the identifying parameter. No output schema exists, but return values are not necessary for correct invocation.

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 100% and the job_id description already explains its origin from crawl_site. The description only repeats 'by job ID' without adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Cancel'), a specific resource ('crawl job'), and the key selector ('by job ID'). The action is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_job_status and crawl_site, even without naming them.

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 explicitly says the tool applies to running or pending jobs and gives a clear when-not condition: no effect on terminal-state jobs. It does not name alternative tools, but the boundary condition is enough to guide correct use.

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