cancel_export_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the operation changes server job state and requires specific permissions, which is valuable side-effect information. However, it does not explain whether cancellation is reversible, what happens if the job is already completed, or what response/error behavior to expect.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Cancel an export job') and then provides a concise behavioral/permission caveat. Every word 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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions. The description covers purpose and permission but omits critical operational details, especially the meaning of confirm_job_id and the behavior of canceling jobs in different states. An agent would likely need additional information to call this tool confidently and correctly.

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 description provides no explanation of any parameter. In particular, the required confirm_job_id parameter is non-obvious and not described; an agent cannot infer its purpose, format, or relationship to job_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's bare type/required declarations.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an export job,' which clearly identifies the action and target. It also notes the permission requirement and the fact that it changes server-side state, which helps distinguish it from read-only export tools like get_export_job and list_export_jobs, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when an export job needs to be canceled. It adds the prerequisite that fieldwork_write or admin_write permission is required, which is useful usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as waiting for, restarting, or re-exporting a job.

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