cancel_job

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a destructive operation, so the description's added value is the detail that it applies to queued *or running* jobs, implying in-progress work is interrupted. It does not disclose whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to partially indexed data, or whether the response confirms the cancellation, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the prerequisite, with no wasted wording. It could be marginally tighter, but every sentence contributes.

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 destructive action with a fully described schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers purpose, eligible states, and ID acquisition adequately. The main omission is post-cancellation behavior, which matters somewhat given destructiveHint but is not essential to invoking the tool correctly.

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 100% and the single jobId parameter is documented with format and pattern, so the schema carries the load. The description adds marginal value by stating where the job ID comes from (list_jobs), but adds no format or validation semantics beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a queued or running indexing job') and even scopes which job states are eligible, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with nearby tools such as get_job_info or refresh_version, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It provides workflow guidance by pointing to 'list_jobs' as the way to obtain a job ID, which is genuinely actionable. However, it never states when not to cancel, what alternative exists for a completed job, or what happens if the job has already finished — usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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