cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description at least discloses that this is a cancellation request and that it returns an unspecified but predictable terminal lifecycle state. It still leaves side effects, async behavior, idempotency, and failure semantics undisclosed, so the coverage is thin.

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 terse sentence with no filler and front-loads the main action. It is concise, though it sacrifices helpful detail needed elsewhere.

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 no-annotation tool with three unevaluated parameters, the description covers only the core outcome. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the agent still lacks enough about optional parameters and sibling disambiguation to call the tool correctly.

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% and the description adds no meaning for job_id, command_id, or idempotency_key. job_id is inferable from the tool name and required status, but the optional command_id and idempotency_key roles are unexplained.

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 uses the specific action 'request cancellation' and indicates a job lifecycle outcome, so an agent can see this is a job-cancellation operation. It does not explicitly name the job resource or differentiate from siblings like cancel_sdg_job and cancel_motion, keeping it from a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose cancel_job over alternatives such as cancel_sdg_job, cancel_motion, stop_simulation, or whether this complements get_job_status. Without exclusions or context, the agent must infer applicability.

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