Cancel Job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical context: cancellation is always allowed but does not revert already-applied changes, and a successful call returns 204 No Content. This goes beyond the structured hints and gives the agent a clear expectation of side effects.

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, front-loaded with the HTTP method and action, and no filler. Every clause adds meaningful signal: the action, the cancellation timing, the non-revert warning, and the success response.

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 simple one-parameter cancel operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what happens on success, side effects, and the fact that cancellation is unrestricted. Combined with annotations, it provides a complete picture.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter 'id' as 'The unique ID of the job to cancel' with 100% coverage. The description simply says 'by ID', adding no additional semantic nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Cancel a job by ID.' It uses a specific verb (cancel) and resource (job), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job, create_job, or update_job. The HTTP method 'DELETE' reinforces the action.

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 description provides context on when cancellation is appropriate ('Jobs can be canceled at any time') and a key caveat ('changes already applied will not be reverted'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar actions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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