chatgpt_cancel

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the description adds real value beyond them: that consumed usage is not refunded and that cancellation is asynchronous and must be confirmed by polling. It does not state whether cancellation succeeds for already-terminal jobs, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, action first, then the cost caveat, then the required follow-up. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is canceled, the billing consequence, and the verification step. Only the origin and format of job_id is missing for an agent to act without opening the schema.

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 carries the burden, but it never mentions job_id — neither its format (the schema pattern is the only clue) nor where the agent obtains it (presumably from chatgpt_ask/generate). With a single self-describing required parameter the gap is modest, but it is not compensated for.

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 ('Cancel a queued or running generation') and scopes it to two job states, which separates it from generate/ask siblings. It doesn't name chatgpt_job or chatgpt_status explicitly, so the sibling boundary is only implied by the 'poll the job' sentence.

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?

'Queued or running' implicitly excludes finished jobs and 'Poll the job to confirm terminal status' gives a follow-up path, so usage is inferable. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit guidance on what to do if the job is already terminal.

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