blueprint_cancel

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate mutation safety. It usefully adds that stage files are retained after cancellation, clarifying the non-destructive scope beyond the annotation. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or final job state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both clauses earn their place by stating the action and the key retention behavior.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the important side effect of retaining stage files. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify what happens to the job after cancellation or whether partial results remain accessible.

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 for job_id is 100%, and the schema already documents its format and role. The description only refers to the task generally and adds no further syntax, source, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: cancel a running blueprint task and retain stage files. It is distinguishable from siblings such as blueprint_resume by implying the opposite action, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope beyond 'running'.

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?

Usage is implied by '正在运行的' (running), so an agent can infer this applies only to active jobs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance relative to siblings like blueprint_status or blueprint_resume.

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