Cancel local Codex job

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

Annotations already declare the tool as mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the nuance that 'force only releases unconfirmed state', which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what cancellation entails (e.g., termination of running processes) or the meaning of 'unconfirmed state'. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and follows with the critical nuance about 'force'. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or 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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and mutation, so the description need not repeat those. However, it does not address potential consequences of cancellation (e.g., whether jobs are killed immediately) or the meaning of 'local' in contrast to remote jobs. For a cancellation operation, this is a moderate gap; an agent might benefit from more context about side effects.

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 compensate. It explains the 'force' parameter ('only releases unconfirmed state'), adding meaning beyond the boolean type. 'job_id' is self-explanatory from its name and context. However, the explanation of 'force' is terse and does not fully clarify when it should be set or what 'unconfirmed state' means, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Cancel a local Codex job' with a specific resource (Codex job) and verb (cancel). It distinguishes from the more generic sibling 'cancel_job' by specifying 'local Codex'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Codex-related cancellation tools, so it loses one point.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_job'. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over the generic cancellation tool. The agent is left to infer from the name.

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