Cancel a ChatGPT image job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it explains the underlying mechanism (pressing Stop in the background tab and closing it), which tells the agent the in-progress output is abandoned and the tab is torn down.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the action and its applicable states, the second explains the mechanism. Front-loaded with no padding.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: action, applicable job states, and side effects are all stated. Only the behavior on non-cancellable jobs (error vs. no-op) is left unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not restate job_id. It adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the id (e.g., from job_status or generate_image), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: "Cancel a queued or running ChatGPT image job" tells the agent exactly what is affected and over what states. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like job_status or fetch_images, though the verb makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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 scopes usage to queued or running jobs, which implies when the tool is applicable, but it never states when not to use it (e.g., already-completed or failed jobs) nor references job_status as the way to check state first. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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