cursor_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does valuable work by disclosing that cancellation kills the entire process tree, i.e. that this is destructive and broader than a single process. It omits irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, and behavior when the job is already finished or unknown.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded; there is no filler and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the sole required parameter and the effect of an unsuccessful cancel. It covers the destructive scope well but leaves the parameter entirely undocumented, which is the main gap for a one-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'jobId' has no description in the schema or the description text. The agent is not told where to obtain a jobId (presumably from cursor_run or cursor_list) or whether partial IDs are accepted.

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 running job') and adds scope ('entire process tree'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like cursor_run or cursor_status, though it never names them explicitly.

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 'a running job' hints that the target must be active, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as cursor_status for checking state first, and no prerequisites or confirmation expectations.

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