Cancel a job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: cancellation is a status change to CANCELED and 'No data is deleted,' clarifying that the destructive hint does not mean data loss.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then side effect, then parameter routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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 cancel mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and parameter routing. It omits what happens if neither identifier is supplied (required list is empty) and does not mention the close_jobs alternative, leaving a small gap.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: customerName resolves to the most recent scheduled job (fuzzy lookup) while jobId is an exact match, and it frames the two as alternatives (OR). This goes beyond the schema's terse per-parameter notes.

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 scheduled job') plus the mechanism ('setting its status to CANCELED'), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as close_jobs or reschedule_job, so it falls short of the top score.

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 routes the agent between the two parameters ('Use customerName when user mentions a customer'), which is useful selection guidance, but never says when to cancel versus close_jobs or reschedule_job. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped against alternatives.

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