job_cancel

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds essential behavioral nuance: cancellation is not instantaneous for per-frame operations and is impossible for ImageIntegration. This gives the agent the critical context it needs beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the behavioral scope, and the alternative tool with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the exception is stated immediately after.

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 single-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cancellation semantics, and the key alternative. It does not mention what response or status is returned, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation and the availability of separate job_status/job_wait tools.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter. It does not explain how to obtain or format job_id, nor does it state that it is the identifier of the job to cancel. The meaning is inferable from the tool name, but the description itself adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Request cancellation') and then clarifies the exact behavior: per-frame operations stop at the next frame, while ImageIntegration is not interruptible. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from pi_stop, so an agent can identify it among the many sibling tools.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance by naming which jobs can be canceled (per-frame operations) and explicitly stating that a running ImageIntegration cannot be interrupted, directing the agent to 'use pi_stop mode:"kill"'. This is an explicit exclusion and alternative in one concise statement.

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