jobs_cancel

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. With no annotations, it fails to explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the job after cancellation. The agent gets minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but lacks necessary information. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it is under-specified.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description should provide comprehensive context (e.g., success/error responses, idempotency, concurrency). It fails to do so, leaving the agent with inadequate information.

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 only parameter 'id' is not described beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify what 'id' refers to (e.g., job ID, task ID) but does not, adding no value over the schema itself.

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 states the verb 'cancel' and the resource 'background job', which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it lacks detail to differentiate from other cancellation tools like exams_cancelGeneration, though the context of 'background jobs' makes it distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jobs_get or other cancel tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or context for cancellation.

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