job_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions the SIGTERM signal escalating to SIGKILL after a grace period, giving insight into the termination process. However, it does not discuss side effects such as partial results or reversibility, which are relevant for a cancellation operation.

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 that immediately states the action and the target. It provides essential behavioral detail (signal escalation) with no wasteful words.

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 cancellation tool, the description covers the core action and the signal escalation behavior. It does not explain the return value or error handling, but the output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. The sibling tools provide enough context for an agent to understand its role.

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?

There is only one parameter, job_id, and its meaning is clear from the schema property title 'Job Id'. The description does not explicitly elaborate on the parameter, but the tool's purpose makes it obvious that job_id identifies the job to cancel. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds no explicit compensation, but the parameter is self-explanatory.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'running simulation job'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_status, job_list, and job_logs, which serve different purposes in the job lifecycle.

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 usage for stopping a running simulation job, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on what to do if the job is not running or whether other tools like job_status should be used first.

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