load_file_cancel

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

The description is behaviorally rich, describing phase-dependent outcomes including aborting LOAD DATA, rolling back INSERTs, and dropping a table the load created. However, this directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation, since cancelling a load and removing a created table are state-changing side effects. The contradiction is serious enough to override the otherwise useful behavioral detail.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the phase-specific consequences following in a compact parallel structure. No filler, though the semicolon-clause phrasing takes a moment to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a cancel returns (e.g. confirmation of abort vs rollback vs no-op when nothing was written). It also omits how to get the job_id and what happens if the load already completed. Phase behavior is covered, but the invocation path and result are not.

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?

The single parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all — not what it identifies, not where to obtain it (presumably from load_file_start or load_file_status), and not what happens if it refers to an already-finished job. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource, 'Stop a file load', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as load_file_start, load_file_status, and stop_pipeline. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the vocabulary rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied — you cancel a load that is in a checking or loading phase — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over load_file_status (monitor) or stop_pipeline, nor any precondition such as needing a job_id from load_file_start. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the phase descriptions.

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