convoy_cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that cancellation is a routed request, that queued work cancels definitively while active work gets best-effort process-tree termination, that past-boundary TouchDesigner work is reported non-cancellable rather than simulated, and that cancellation never wakes TouchDesigner. These are non-obvious side-effect and guarantee disclosures an agent needs.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact. It is dense with domain jargon ('host boundary', 'durable delivery') but there is no filler.

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?

Behavioral coverage is strong, but for a 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits parameter meaning entirely and says nothing about what is returned when cancellation succeeds or fails. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and all three parameters (target_host_id, convoy_id, delivery_id) are required, yet the description never explains what any of them identify or their format. Phrases like 'the exact host' and 'durable delivery' gesture at target_host_id and delivery_id but do not map clearly enough to compensate for the total schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (job / durable delivery), and scopes it to the owning host. It is distinguishable from siblings like convoy_get_job and convoy_ack_job, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 implies usage by describing the three delivery states (queued, active, past-host-boundary), which tells the agent what outcomes to expect. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus convoy_ack_job or other convoy tools, leaving routing to inference.

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