skypilot_managed_job_cancel

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that – the return value (request_id), that graceful waits for in-progress data uploads, and that all_users widens scope to every user. This is meaningful disclosure of side effects and scope for a destructive tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the selection constraint before the optional flags. No filler, and the return value is appended efficiently.

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 and the description still names the return value, and it covers the mutually-exclusive selection modes plus the two behavioral flags. Only graceful_timeout is left unexplained, a small gap for a mostly complete destructive-operation definition.

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%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains name, job_ids, pool, cancel_all (with mutual exclusivity), all_users, and graceful with semantics. It omits any explanation of graceful_timeout, leaving one of seven parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel managed jobs'), which separates it from the regular-job sibling skypilot_job_cancel by resource name. It does not, however, explicitly route agents away from other cancel-family siblings such as skypilot_api_cancel, so it stops short of the top score.

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 concrete operating rule – provide exactly one of name, job_ids, cancel_all, or pool, and notes these are mutually exclusive – which is genuine invocation guidance. It lacks when-to-use-vs-alternative routing (e.g., when to prefer skypilot_job_cancel or skypilot_api_cancel), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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