kaiten_cancel_compute_job

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a concrete side effect: setting a canceled_at timestamp and preventing further processing. It does not mention failure cases or permissions, but the core behavioral outcome is clearly stated.

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 two short sentences: the first states the action, the second states the consequence. It contains no filler and does not redundantly repeat the schema's parameter description.

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 simple one-parameter cancellation tool, the description provides the action, applicable state, and resulting effect. It omits return-value details, but no output schema exists and the behavior is straightforward enough that this is not a significant gap.

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 single parameter job_id is already fully described in the input schema ('Compute job ID to cancel'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('compute job'), and further narrows scope to 'running or queued' jobs. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling kaiten_get_compute_job and other compute-related operations.

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 conveys the relevant condition for invoking the tool: the job must be running or queued. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the cancellation action has no close sibling alternative among the listed tools, so the implied usage context is sufficient.

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