Gpu Cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description meaningfully expands them: it explains the state transition (cancelling -> cancelled) and, crucially, what survives (outputs and checkpoints kept), which is the nuance an agent needs beyond a bare destructive hint. It also spells out the idempotency semantics ('cancelling a finished job changes nothing') rather than just restating the hint.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then behavior, then usage triggers, then return shape. No filler and nothing buried.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers the action, idempotency, state transition, data retention, and the return keys (which is a bonus since an output schema already exists). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema (ref format, verbose behavior), so the description carries no extra obligation. The description adds no format or prefix syntax beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Stop a job') and immediately disambiguates scope from the read-side siblings like gpu_status and gpu_logs. An agent can tell it is the cancellation counterpart to gpu_submit without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers: on user request, or proactively when the job is 'clearly wrong (bad arguments, runaway loss)' to stop burning quota. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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