Cancel Sailfish Build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's word 'Request' usefully signals that cancellation is asynchronous and may not be immediate, but it omits auth requirements, behavior for already-finished jobs, and how to confirm cancellation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the scoped resource.

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 tool with no output schema and adequate safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the agent guessing where job_id comes from and what a successful 'request' implies, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the single job_id parameter has no description; the description does not explain what job_id is or that it comes from sailfish_build_rpm. With one opaque required parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 (cancel) and a precisely scoped resource (local asynchronous Sailfish RPM build job), which distinguishes it from sailfish_android_build_cancel and sailfish_device_command_cancel. It does not name those siblings directly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus sailfish_build_status, sailfish_build_rpm, or the android/device cancel siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the job must still be running, where job_id originates). The only hint is the implicit 'local' scoping.

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