cancel_research_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavior by stating the cancellation is a clean exit at the nearest stage boundary, but it does not mention side effects, whether the cancellation is reversible, what happens to partial results, or whether the call is synchronous.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the primary action, and adds only one useful parenthetical behavioral detail. The Args list is minimal and directly matches the single schema parameter with no wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter adequately. However, it omits post-cancellation state, return behavior, and any guidance comparing cancellation to deleting or recovering jobs, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the parameter documentation is carried entirely by the Args section. The description defines job_id as 'the id of the running task', which adds a small amount of context beyond the schema's bare title 'Job Id', but it largely restates what the parameter is.

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 action 'cancel' and the resource 'a task running in the background', with a useful qualifier about cleanly exiting at the nearest stage boundary. It is specific enough to be distinguished from listing, creating, or deleting jobs, though it does not explicitly contrast with delete_research_job.

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 a clear condition for use: cancel a task that is currently running in the background. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the running-task condition is an explicit contextual signal for when this tool is appropriate.

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