cancel_job_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a precondition ('running') but does not explain behavior for non-running jobs (e.g., completed, pending, failed), idempotency, error behavior, or side effects. For a destructive action like cancellation, the lack of such context is a significant 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?

The description is admirably concise at six words, leading with the verb 'Cancel' and front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, keeping the description tight and easily scannable, though it leaves little room for additional context.

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, state-changing action with an output schema available, the description suffices for typical use cases. It does not need to explain returns. However, the 'running' state caveat introduces ambiguity about handling of jobs in other states, which is not addressed. Slightly more completeness around state behavior would make it more robust.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both project_id ('Project ID or path') and job_id ('Job ID'). The description's phrase 'CI/CD job' reinforces that job_id refers to a CI/CD job, but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters clearly.

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 'Cancel a running CI/CD job' uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and identifies a clear resource ('CI/CD job'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It communicates the state-based intent ('running') which adds nuance not present in the tool name alone, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like cancel_pipeline_tool beyond the obvious noun.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the goal is to cancel a job. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., retry_job_tool, delete_job_tool) or exclusions (e.g., 'For pipelines, use cancel_pipeline_tool'). The usage context is clear enough for a simple cancellation but relies on the agent to infer it from naming conventions among siblings.

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