makemkv_cancel_job

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

Annotations provide 'destructiveHint: true,' indicating a mutation operation. The description adds value by specifying the target ('queued or running rip job'), which clarifies the scope of the destructive action. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it offers useful context beyond the structured data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, destructive operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and target, though it could benefit from more detailed usage guidelines or behavioral context to be fully comprehensive.

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%, with one parameter ('job_id') documented only in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, and the description's general context partially compensates for the lack of detailed param semantics.

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') and the target ('a queued or running rip job'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'makemkv_job_status' or 'makemkv_list_jobs' beyond the cancel action itself.

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 context by specifying 'queued or running rip job,' suggesting when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'makemcv_job_status' for checking job state) or any prerequisites, leaving some gaps in usage clarity.

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