cancel_crawlhtml_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool cancels jobs and returns a dictionary result, it lacks critical details: what permissions are needed, whether cancellation is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., partial data cleanup), rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value note. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The structure is clear, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly into prose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description misses behavioral context (e.g., cancellation effects) and usage guidelines. It covers basics but leaves gaps for safe and effective use.

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 must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'crawl_id' with a brief explanation ('ID of the crawl job to cancel'), which adds basic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Crawl Id'. However, it doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or where to obtain the ID, leaving the parameter only partially clarified.

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 tool's purpose: 'Cancel an in-progress Firecrawl HTML crawl job.' It specifies the verb ('cancel'), resource ('Firecrawl HTML crawl job'), and scope ('in-progress'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_job' or 'check_crawlhtml_status', which could create ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., job must be in-progress), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed jobs), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'cancel_job' or 'check_crawlhtml_status'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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