Cancel a job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return behavior but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error handling (e.g., if job not found or not pending), or auth requirements. For a simple mutation, it is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise: one sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. No wasted words or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and return behavior. It is lacking error conditions and preconditions, but for a straightforward cancel operation it is mostly complete.

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 100% (the single parameter 'id' has a description). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it says 'by id' which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional meaning is provided.

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 verb 'Cancel', the resource 'a pending job', and the method 'by id'. It also specifies the return behavior 'Returns no content on success', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_job' or 'replay_job'.

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 implicitly indicates usage for cancelling a pending job, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what preconditions exist (e.g., job must be pending). Sibling tools like 'replay_job' suggest different actions, but no direct guidance is given.

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