Cancel Import Job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful detail that only a *running* job is a valid target, but says nothing about reversibility, what happens to already-imported content, or auth/permission requirements.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is tersely efficient, though arguably it could spend one more clause on the caller's obligation without becoming bloated.

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 with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It is adequate but leaves gaps on job-state preconditions and what happens to partial import state, which for a destructive operation would be worth a sentence.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Import job ID to cancel'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema applies.

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 ('import job') with the qualifier 'running' that scopes the operation. The agent can distinguish it from cancel_approval_request and cancel_scheduled_publish by resource, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. job must be running), and no mention of alternatives like cancel_approval_request. The 'running' qualifier faintly implies a precondition but stops short of stating it as guidance.

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