cancel_job

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

Discloses that the tool cancels a job and the applicable states. Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it lacks details on side effects, permissions needed, or irreversibility of the cancellation.

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, front-loaded sentences convey the essential information with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and constraints. Could mention that cancellation is irreversible or requires specific permissions, but it is fairly complete.

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?

The single parameter 'job_id' is fully described in the input schema ('Job ID to cancel'), and the description adds no additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'pending or running async job'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_job_status (status check) and list_jobs (listing). Also specifies a constraint on job states.

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?

Explicitly states that the tool cannot cancel already completed, failed, or cancelled jobs, giving clear context on when not to use it. However, it does not suggest checking job status via sibling tools like check_job_status before calling.

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