job_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that cancellation is cooperative and occurs at the next progress checkpoint, implying it is not an immediate kill. It omits other important traits such as permissions required, behavior if the job is already finished, idempotency, or what the tool returns.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action, target, and key constraint.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the core action and the cooperative cancellation behavior. However, it does not explain the required job_id parameter, where to find it, or what happens on error or completion, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 job_id. The description does not mention this parameter, explain how to obtain it, or clarify its format or source, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('running background job') and adds a key qualifier ('at its next progress checkpoint'), making the tool's purpose clear. It separates itself from siblings like job_status and job_result by focusing on cancellation, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'running background job' implies the tool should be used only for jobs still in progress, which is useful context. However, the description does not state when not to use it, does not mention alternatives such as job_status for checking progress, and provides no prerequisites beyond the implied running state.

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