copilot_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by stating the operation is idempotent and does not undo prior actions, but it omits what happens to the job's state, whether in-flight work is lost, auth requirements, and what the call returns.

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 filler: the action and its effect come first, followed by the idempotency and non-reversibility caveat. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, effect, idempotency, and a side-effect caveat, which is close to sufficient. It still leaves the agent guessing about the resulting job state and return value, which matters when cancelling a running job.

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 at 0% schema description coverage, so the description technically carries the burden. However, 'jobId' is self-describing and the schema already constrains it as a UUID with a pattern, so the lack of prose adds little practical ambiguity but also little extra meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a job') and adds the concrete effect of terminating the dedicated Copilot runtime, which separates it from read-oriented siblings like copilot_jobs or copilot_events. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is an alternative to, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Cancel a job' — an agent can infer it is the tool for stopping a running job — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., job must exist or be running), and no pointer to alternatives such as inspecting jobs first.

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