remote_job_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It adds one behavioral detail: 'SSH cancellation closes that named shell session.' However, it does not mention reversibility, side effects on dependent jobs, or permission requirements, which leaves the behavioral profile partially undisclosed.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase earns its place, and the second sentence adds a useful behavioral nuance without unnecessary fluff.

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 cancellation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action and an important side effect. It does not detail error cases or confirmation behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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%, so the description should compensate for the single job_id parameter. It does not explain what job_id refers to or where it comes from (e.g., from remote_job_start or remote_job_list). The parameter name and the tool's purpose provide some inference, but the guidance is insufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Interrupt and cancel') and the resource ('a running job'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no other sibling has cancel semantics, so the differentiation is inherent.

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 phrase 'a running job' implies the tool is for active jobs, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like remote_job_status or remote_job_result. The usage context is clear but not elaborated with exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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