Cancel, pause, or resume a job

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

The annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the terminal nature of cancel and the confirmation guard after user naming. It does not describe pause/resume side effects, but the annotation carries the mutating safety profile.

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 clauses deliver the full operational meaning with no filler, and the most important behavioral note (terminal) is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the core behavior, safety, and confirmation requirement. It could add how to obtain job_id or post-cancel effects, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking it.

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 add meaning, and it does: 'named job id' defines what job_id refers to, the three action values are spelled out, and confirm=true is tied to the user explicitly naming the job. It doesn't discuss the default 'cancel' action, but the schema covers that.

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 explicitly names the resource ('named job id') and the three actions ('Cancel (terminal), pause, or resume'), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from schedule_list and schedule_create siblings.

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 gives a concrete precondition: 'confirm=true after the user named the job,' which tells the agent when it is safe to proceed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the action set and job-id target are clear enough to separate this from status/list/create siblings.

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