cancel_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what can be cancelled but does not disclose whether cancellation is irreversible, what happens to partial results, whether permissions are required, or what errors occur for already-completed 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 wasted words. It communicates the action and scope efficiently.

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 with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about the consequences and limits of cancellation.

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 100%, and the single prompt_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the ID format or source beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: cancel a job. It also narrows scope to queued or running jobs, which helps an agent understand what can be cancelled. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling appears to overlap with cancellation.

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 phrase 'queued or running' implies the applicable state for cancellation, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when not to use the tool, what to do for completed jobs, or how it relates to alternatives like get_job_result or get_queue_status.

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