cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the state constraint, which is critical for proper use. However, it does not describe consequences (e.g., job removal, status update, error handling) or whether cancellation is synchronous or asynchronous.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences with no extraneous information. The key points (action, state constraint, input) are immediately clear and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It covers the action, input, and valid states. Minor lack of details on error conditions or response, but not critical for a straightforward cancellation.

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 parameter 'job_id' has 0% schema coverage (no description in schema). The description adds 'The job ID to cancel', which is minimal semantic value over the parameter name. No format, source, or example is provided. For a single required param, more guidance would be helpful.

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 ('Cancel') and the resource ('a queued or running print job'), using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_print' by specifying 'print job' rather than print task or other operations.

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?

Explicitly states the valid states for cancellation ('Only jobs in QUEUED or PRINTING state can be cancelled'), guiding when to use the tool. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the state constraint provides clear usage context.

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