cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable trait — that cancellation kills the process tree, implying a destructive, non-graceful termination — but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or behavior when the job is already finished.

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 clause with the destructive effect front-loaded in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but as structure it is tight and readable.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, and the lone parameter is undocumented in both schema and prose. For a simple cancel operation the description covers the essentials (what it does, destructiveness) but omits return behavior and failure conditions.

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% for the single required parameter, so the burden falls on the description, which never mentions job_id or its expected format. The description adds no parameter meaning at all.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (a job), and the parenthetical 'mata el árbol de procesos' clarifies the actual effect. It does not differentiate itself from potential siblings like 'cleanup' or 'wait', but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as 'cleanup' or 'wait', nor any stated preconditions (e.g. the job must be running). The reader is left to infer all usage context.

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