Cancel Job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the job's process is terminated, but omits irreversibility, permission requirements, idempotency, and whether non-running jobs produce errors.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the action and effect front-loaded; no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 destructive cancellation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It should at least note side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior; the existing output schema means return values need not be explained.

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 no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never mentions it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no format, source, or validation is added beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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?

Specific verb 'Cancels' and resource 'background job' with qualifier 'running' clearly state the action and distinguish from session siblings like close_session and job siblings like submit_job/get_job/wait_job. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The word 'running' only weakly implies it applies to active jobs, and alternatives such as get_job, wait_job, or close_session are not mentioned.

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