cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description contributes the non-obvious fact that completed outputs remain available after cancellation, which genuinely adds context about what is and isn't destroyed. It stops short of saying whether cancellation is immediate or best-effort, or what happens to partial outputs.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the eligible states, and the key side-effect guarantee. Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety semantics for this mutation. The remaining gap is the missing job_id sourcing/format detail and the immediate-vs-async behavior, which are minor for a one-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter job_id has no description in the schema. The description never mentions job_id, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_jobs). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Request cancellation') and resource ('queued or running job'), and scopes which job states are eligible, which cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_job and list_jobs. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'queued or running job' implies the condition under which cancellation applies, and 'Request cancellation' hints at the async nature. But there is no guidance on checking status first (e.g., with get_job), no mention of what happens if the job is already finished, and no named alternatives.

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