job_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful effect 'stopping your character' and explains the all=true variant. However, it does not describe what happens if both all=false and job_id are null, whether cancellation is reversible, or any error conditions.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The main action and the key parameter behavior (all=true) are front-loaded, and 'stopping your character' adds relevant consequence without bloating the text.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the main variant. Still, it does not specify the default behavior when no job_id is given and all=false, or how the tool relates to the current job versus queued jobs. These gaps make it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that all=true cancels all jobs and that otherwise one job is canceled, which gives meaning to the boolean. However, it never names job_id, its type, or the meaning of null/defaults, leaving part of the parameter surface under-specified.

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'), identifies the exact resource ('your jobs'), and adds scope ('one of them, or all of them'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like job_status and job_wait, which are for checking state rather than canceling.

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 explains the operation but gives no guidance on when to choose job_cancel instead of job_status or job_wait)Skip this. It does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'cancel' rather than explicitly differentiated.

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