Cancel job

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces them non-contradictorily while adding real value: partially written images persist and are recorded in the manifest so a re-run skips them. That partial-completion/resume semantic is not derivable from any structured field. It stops short of stating latency, error behavior, or what a cancelled-by-race job returns.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the action is front-loaded and the consequences follow. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, annotations plus the partial-completion note cover nearly everything an agent needs. The only genuine gap is the unexplained jobId and its provenance.

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?

There is one required parameter, jobId, with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The description never mentions jobId, where to obtain it (presumably from optimize_images or get_job), or what format it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and a specific resource (an optimize_images job), tying it directly to the sibling optimize_images. An agent can immediately distinguish this job-control tool from analyze_images, get_job, and compare_images.

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 by 'Stop an optimize_images job', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of get_job for checking status first, and no statement of when cancellation is inappropriate (e.g. already-finished jobs).

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