diana_job_cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The parenthetical adds real value beyond that by naming exactly what terminates (diana.exe plus its solver segment processes), which is the kind of scope detail annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether partial results are lost or whether dependent jobs are affected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the destructive scope immediately after; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the action and its blast radius but omits how to obtain a valid job_id and what happens to in-progress results. Output schema coverage relieves it of explaining return values, but the input-side gap remains.

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?

There is one required parameter, job_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It does not say where a job_id comes from (diana_job_status, diana_run_solver, or diana_solve) or what format it takes, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('a running solver job') and adds the concrete mechanism (kills diana.exe and its solver segment processes). An agent can distinguish this from diana_job_status or diana_solve, though the sibling diana_stop is never mentioned, so the boundary between the two is left implicit.

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 phrase 'running solver job' implies the precondition (only call while a job is active), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of diana_stop, and no note on what to do for jobs that have already finished. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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