quantum_cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare the destructive, idempotent, open-world, and non-read-only nature of the tool. The description adds meaningful cost context beyond annotations by warning that already consumed QPU time remains consumed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by an important caveat. There is no wasted wording.

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?

The annotations and output schema cover much of the safety and return-value context, and the description adds a useful QPU cost warning. Still, it does not document the optional instance parameter or explain cancellation semantics such as whether the request is asynchronous.

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 explain the parameters. It only refers vaguely to a 'specified unfinished IBM job' and does not explain the required job_id or the optional instance parameter.

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 a specific action and target: cancellation of an unfinished IBM job. This distinguishes it from sibling job listing, detail, simulation, and run tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 word 'unfinished' implies the tool applies only to active jobs, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no reference to sibling alternatives.

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