cancel_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that cancellation is likely irreversible, what happens to partial scan results, whether permissions are required, or whether the job stops immediately or gracefully — critical context for a destructive 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler; it is appropriately sized but borders on under-specification rather than being padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs to know the effect of cancelling and what a successful call returns. The description supplies neither, leaving significant gaps for an irreversible operation.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but says nothing about job_id — no format, no hint that it is likely obtained from list_jobs or start_scan_job. The schema only declares it as a bare string.

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?

Specific verb 'cancel' plus resource 'scan job' makes the operation unambiguous, and it is clearly the inverse of the sibling start_scan_job. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or clarifying scope (e.g., can queued jobs be cancelled or only running ones).

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus letting a job finish, and no mention of prerequisites. The qualifier 'running' implies only active jobs qualify, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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