remote_job_cancel

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description does add something the annotations cannot: SSH cancellation closes the named shell session, which is an important side effect. It still does not say what happens to job output, whether 'interrupt' is a graceful phase before 'cancel', or how a finished or unknown job_id is handled.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, with no filler. 'Interrupt and cancel' is mildly redundant but may be an intentional distinction between the two phases.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is simple at one required parameter. However, a destructive mutation with no annotation-independent detail about permissions, reversibility, or job_id provenance leaves the agent under-informed for a state-changing call.

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 single job_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate: it never says where a job_id comes from (presumably remote_job_list or remote_job_start) or what form it takes. The baseline of 3 for simple parameter sets is not earned here because the coverage gap is total.

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 and resource: 'Interrupt and cancel a running job.' That is enough to separate it from remote_job_start, remote_job_status, and remote_job_list without opening a schema. It stops short of naming any sibling it should be preferred over, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about what to do for an already-finished job, and no pointer to the alternative tools such as remote_session_close. With 28 sibling tools in this family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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