cancel_job

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds the important behavioral rule that running operations can't be cancelled safely, which explains why cancellation is limited to queued jobs. It doesn't say what happens to a job after cancellation or whether it's reversible, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the actionable instruction front-loaded followed by the single most important caveat.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essential behavioral constraint an agent needs before calling it. The main gap is not explaining where the job_id originates or what the caller gets back.

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?

Only one parameter, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions job_id — no hint about where the ID comes from (start_run/start_plan output) or its format. Some compensation is needed and only partially provided by the 'queued job' framing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a queued job') and adds a scope constraint that the name alone doesn't convey. The word 'cancel' is unique among siblings, so it is reasonably distinguishable, but it never names job status/inspection counterparts to contrast with.

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?

'Cancel a queued job' plus 'Running SQLMesh operations cannot be interrupted safely' implies the prerequisite that the job must still be queued, but this is left implicit rather than stated as a condition. No alternative tool (e.g. checking status first) is mentioned.

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