web_crawl_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two valuable traits — idempotency and that terminal jobs are returned unchanged — which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether cancellation discards partial results, whether it is reversible, or any auth/permission requirements for a mutating operation.

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 core behavior and idempotency guarantee are front-loaded in one compact sentence, with the parameter note following. The Args block is slightly redundant in structure but earns its place by adding the provenance of job_id.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key semantic (idempotent cancel). The remaining gap — consequences for partial crawl artifacts and permission needs — is modest for a single-parameter cancel tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Job Id', so the description must compensate — and it does, stating that job_id is the task ID returned by web_crawl_start, which tells the agent where to obtain the value. Format details (string type) are already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (取消/cancel) and resource (未完成的异步爬取任务, an unfinished async crawl job), which is clearly distinct from siblings like web_crawl_start and web_crawl_status. It also discloses the terminal-state behavior, but does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.

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 'cancel an unfinished async crawl task' and the idempotency note tells the agent that calling it on a finished job is harmless, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or reference to web_crawl_status for checking state first.

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