transcript_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it distinguishes queued (immediate) from running (chunk-boundary, up to ~2 minutes) jobs and guarantees that already-transcribed content survives and is resumable. It omits auth/permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads and timing/data-safety details follow. Size is well matched to the operation's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the behavioral narrative is solid. The remaining gaps are the undocumented job_id parameter and the absence of any auth or prerequisite context.

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 single required parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format/source. Unlike the zero-parameter baseline case, here the description leaves the one parameter entirely undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Stop a job'), which is better than a tautology. However, 'job' is never identified as a transcription job, and there is no differentiation from the sibling transcript_delete, which an agent could reasonably confuse with cancellation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that 'the job can be resumed later' implicitly contrasts cancellation with the destructive transcript_delete, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given.

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