cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side effects. It only says 'request cancellation,' which suggests an asynchronous request but does not explain whether the job is forcibly killed, whether results are retained, or any reversibility. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. It earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation-like operation with no annotations and no parameter details, one sentence is too sparse. Even though an output schema exists, the tool's effects and preconditions are unexplained, making it incomplete in context.

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 description provides zero information about the jobid parameter beyond what the schema already states (a required string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain how to find or format the jobid, but it does not.

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 (request cancellation) and the target resource (a running external job). It distinguishes from sibling job-related tools like get_job_status and get_job_result, which are read-only.

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 usage for running external jobs but provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain jobid), and no when-not-to-use conditions. This is insufficient guidance.

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