glm_5_cancel_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions preserving audit state but omits details on irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to already completed work. The single sentence is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points or separate sentences for key behaviors). It is concise but not a model of clarity.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and sibling lifecycle tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify return values, parameter details, or edge cases, making it inadequate for effective use.

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?

The description does not explain any of the three parameters (jobId, reason, rollbackIfPossible). Schema coverage is 0%, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema structure, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'future work in a persisted job', distinguishing it from siblings like 'resume_job' or 'rollback_changes'. It also adds the qualifier 'preserving audit state', which specifies a key behavioral aspect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rollback_changes' or 'revoke_approval'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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