danceflow_cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add nuance — and it does, by stating that partial outputs and the receipt survive cancellation, which materially softens the destructive read. It does not say whether cancellation is immediate or graceful, nor what error surfaces for a non-owned job id.

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 compact sentence with the ownership constraint front-loaded before the data-preservation guarantee. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 need no explanation. For a destructive mutation, however, the definition is thin: it omits how to obtain job_id, whether cancellation is cooperative, and what happens when the id belongs to another session — gaps an agent would otherwise hit at call time.

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 job_id has no description in the schema, so the description must carry the load. It implies job_id refers to a job owned by the current server session, which is genuinely useful scoping, but adds no format, example, or source (where to obtain the id) beyond that.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Stop") plus an explicit scope qualifier ("only a process owned by this server session"), which tells an agent this is a cancellation tool restricted to session-owned jobs. It is distinguishable from siblings like danceflow_job_status and danceflow_job_logs by name and verb, but does not explicitly contrast itself with them in the text.

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 "only a process owned by this server session" implies a precondition for use, but the description never states when to cancel versus checking status/logs first, nor what to do if the job is not session-owned. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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