cancel_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that only queued or running jobs are eligible, which is useful. However, it does not mention irreversibility, what happens after cancellation, what errors may occur, or whether any related resources are affected. The state constraint is a positive signal, but the description is not fully transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning: 'currently queued or running' is essential and 'background job' identifies the resource. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 simple one-parameter contract and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and the eligibility condition, but lacks details an agent might need for robust invocation, such as how to obtain a valid job_id or what response to expect. The low complexity prevents a lower score, but the missing behavioral details prevent a higher one.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain job_id at all. The parameter is somewhat self-evident from the tool name, but the description adds no guidance on where to find it, its format, or how it relates to the job lifecycle. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate; 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 uses a specific verb ('cancel') and a clear resource ('background job'), and adds a meaningful state qualifier ('currently queued or running'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status, list_jobs, and submit_fit_mmm_job without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'currently queued or running' gives an implicit when-to-use condition: cancel only jobs in those states. It implies reliance on job IDs from submission or listing tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_job_status or list_jobs for retrieving job IDs. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions.

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