Cancel job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate destructiveness or idempotency. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the termination sequence (TERM, then KILL after 5s), which explains the escalation behavior an agent should expect.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and the key behavioral nuance in under ten words. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and signal escalation. It does not mention what happens if the job is already finished or how to locate job_id, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling job_* 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?

The schema provides only a title 'Job Id' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly define job_id or state where to obtain it. However, the parameter's meaning is self-evident from the tool name and description context, so the combination is minimally adequate but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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, action-oriented verb ('Terminate') with a clear resource ('a running job'), and distinguishes itself from sibling read/status tools by focusing on killing the job rather than inspecting, waiting, or listing it. The TERM-then-KILL detail further confirms the operation.

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 when to use the tool—when a running job needs to be terminated. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like process_kill or job_start as contrasts. The usage context is reasonably clear but relies on inference from the sibling tool names.

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