fofa_job_cancel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the worker is reclaimed and incurred charges are not refunded, which is a material cost consequence an agent must weigh before calling. It stops short of saying whether partial results are preserved or how quickly cancellation takes effect.

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 sentences with no waste, and the core action plus the most important caveat (no refund) are front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from annotations or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the cost warning covers the main behavioral risk. The gaps are around the input's provenance and edge cases such as cancelling an already-finished job, which matter for a single-purpose mutation tool with one required argument.

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% for the single job_id parameter, so the description must carry the meaning and does not. It never says where a job_id comes from (presumably the job-start or status tools) or what form it takes, leaving the only input underspecified in both schema and prose.

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 an active Agent, Nuclei scan or export job, plus the side effect of reclaiming its worker. The enumeration of job types and the 'active' qualifier make it distinguishable from fofa_job_status and fofa_schedule_stop, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 word 'active' implies the tool applies only to jobs still running, which is useful scoping. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of what to do for finished jobs (fofa_job_status), and no pointer to the schedule-stop sibling for scheduled jobs.

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