bulk_job_abort

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add nuance. It does: records already processed are not rolled back, and jobs are never deleted. These are non-obvious behavioral facts that materially affect how an agent plans recovery after abort.

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?

Three short sentences, no padding, with the action and its state constraint front-loaded and the two caveats (no rollback, no deletion) following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, annotated mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the critical unknowns: eligible states, irreversibility of processed records, and post-abort job retention. It omits what the call returns and whether the job can be resumed, which are minor given annotation coverage.

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 description says nothing about jobId or targetOrg. The reported schema description coverage is 0% for the wrapper, but the nested schema does document the jobId format (starts with 750) and the targetOrg fallback, so the schema still carries the parameter semantics. No added information beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (Abort) and resource (Bulk API 2.0 job) and bounds the eligible states (Open, UploadComplete, InProgress). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like bulk_job_status or bulk_delete_records.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use by enumerating the job states that qualify and implying finished jobs are out of scope. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. bulk_job_status to verify state, or that a new job must be created instead), so it is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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