job_cancel

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

The description adds a key behavioral caveat beyond the annotations: cancellation does not undo a TradingView write already submitted. This is useful context for a non-readonly, non-idempotent operation. It does not explain cancellation guarantees or resulting job state, but annotations already cover the basic safety profile.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted language. The core action is front-loaded and the important caveat follows immediately.

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 cancellation tool with annotations and complete schema coverage, the description provides enough context to call it correctly and warns about the main irreversible side effect. It could mention how to verify cancellation status, but that is a minor omission.

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 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented as a returned job or stream ID. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or source guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: request cancellation of an in-process job. It clearly identifies the action, but it does not explicitly distinguish job cancellation from the sibling stream_stop tool, especially since the schema says the ID may be a job or stream ID.

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?

Usage is implied by 'in-process job' and the caveat about already-submitted writes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus job_get, job_list, or stream_stop. The agent can infer the intended context but is not routed to alternatives.

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