cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'deletes' a job and returns a response string. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to associated resources, permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid job_id), or side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, and the next two clarify input and output without redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description adds basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a destructive tool. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in usage guidelines and transparency, making it incomplete for safe agent operation.

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%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'job_id' with its purpose ('ID of the job to cancel'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. Since there's only one parameter, this nearly compensates for the coverage gap, though format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string) would improve it.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a specific job', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_workflow' or 'delete_source_connector' which also delete resources, nor does it clarify what type of job this refers to in the context of the server.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., job must be running), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed jobs), or relationships to siblings like 'check_crawlhtml_status' or 'list_jobs' that might help select jobs to cancel.

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