Prepare PJM job cancellation

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description clarifies this is a 'preview' and returns a token, adding crucial context that no actual cancellation occurs. This goes beyond the annotations and helps avoid misinterpretation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value and the structure is clear.

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?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and a sibling confirm_action, the description leaves the 'reason' parameter undocumented and doesn't explain the workflow with confirm_action. The tool is simple but the description does not fully cover what the agent needs for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at jobId with 'current owned job' and omits the 'reason' parameter entirely.

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 uses a specific verb 'Preview' and identifies the resource as 'cancellation of a current owned job', also stating the output is a confirmation token. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_job or confirm_action.

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 a preview step before actual cancellation and notes the job must be 'current owned', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as referencing confirm_action for finalizing.

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