cancel_asset_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys intent and target state but does not explain whether cancellation is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur, or how failures are reported.

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 with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary qualification. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 one-parameter tool, the description gives the essential target state, making the call minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits behavioral details such as expected return value, error conditions for already-completed jobs, and how to verify cancellation success.

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 parameter. It adds no information about job_id beyond the parameter name itself, such as where to obtain it, its expected format, or its relationship to status APIs.

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 ('Request cancellation') and a clear resource ('asset job'), and it qualifies the target state ('queued or running'). This distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like start_asset_job and get_asset_job_status without requiring schema inspection.

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 'queued or running asset job' clearly indicates the conditions under which this tool applies. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the state constraint is enough to guide basic selection among the job lifecycle tools.

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