cancel_job

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 clearly states the destructive action (cancel) and the response shape (final status and output tail). It does not disclose edge-case behavior such as idempotency, irreversibility beyond the act of cancelling, or failure behavior for non-running jobs.

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 filler. Every word contributes: the action, the target, and the expected result are all present.

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 description provides the essential cancellation and return contract but omits practical guidance around edge cases and validation—for instance, whether a queued job can be cancelled, what final status will be reported, or how errors are surfaced when cancellation fails. The absence of an output schema makes these details more important.

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 reported as 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters like instance_id, job_id, and tail. It only loosely references 'output tail' and gives no guidance on how to supply the required identifiers or how tail limits the returned output.

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 ('Cancel') with a clear resource ('a running job') and states the expected return payload ('final status and output tail'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like poll_job, submit_job, and list_jobs.

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 the tool: when a running job needs to be cancelled. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions, such as what happens if the job is already finished, or mention alternatives like poll_job for checking status without cancelling.

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