skypilot_job_cancel

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity constraint between job_ids and cancel_all and mentions the return of a request_id, but does not describe other behavioral traits like irreversibility details, confirmation requirements, or side effects beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is three sentences: it front-loads the core action, then gives parameter usage, then notes the return. It is efficiently sized with no wasted text, though the final return-value sentence is slightly redundant given the presence of an output schema.

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?

Given four parameters, a destructive annotation, and an output schema, the description covers the key invocation rules and mutual exclusivity. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly clarify cluster_name's role or explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling cancel operations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the meaning of job_ids, cancel_all, and all_users, and explicitly notes the mutual exclusivity between job_ids and cancel_all. Only cluster_name is left without added semantic detail, but its required and self-descriptive name limits the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: cancel jobs on a cluster. It clearly communicates the action, but does not differentiate this tool from sibling cancel tools like skypilot_managed_job_cancel or skypilot_api_cancel, leaving the agent to infer which cancel variant is appropriate.

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 description explains how to invoke the tool with job_ids, cancel_all, and all_users, including that job_ids and cancel_all are mutually exclusive. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as skypilot_managed_job_cancel, so tool-selection context is only implied.

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