cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful detail — cancellation happens between steps, not mid-step — but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the job is not running or not between steps.

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 a single, minimal sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key scoping condition ('between steps') is included without bloating the text.

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 tool with an output schema, this is a minimally viable description. However, it omits guidance on alternatives, doesn't clarify what happens in invalid states, and relies entirely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 0%, and the description does not mention 'job_id' at all. The schema only indicates a required string titled 'Job Id', so the description adds no additional meaning about how to identify the job or where the ID comes from.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Stop') and the resource ('a running job'), and adds a distinguishing nuance ('between steps'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'job' or 'undo', but the verb and object make the primary purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'running job between steps' implies the intended usage context: only apply this to a job that is currently running and at a step boundary. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling tool should be used instead.

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