cancel_analysis_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does usefully disclose the non-obvious deferred semantics: cancellation occurs at the next search boundary, not immediately, and the active search is bounded. But it omits idempotency, whether partial results are retained, and whether the job_id must reference a running job.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the deferred-cancellation behavior is front-loaded after the core action. Nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the deferred-cancel nuance is captured. However, given a dense family of siblings (start/get/resume/cancel_analysis_job, cancel_progressive_analysis), the description leaves routing and the job_id parameter under-resolved.

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 exactly one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says nothing about where job_id comes from or what a valid identifier looks like, leaving the single parameter semantically thin.

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?

Clear verb+resource: cancels an analysis job, with a meaningful scope detail ('at its next search boundary'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling cancel_progressive_analysis, so an agent must infer which cancellable entity each tool targets.

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?

Usage is only implied — you cancel a job you started via start_analysis_job. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as cancel_progressive_analysis or resume_analysis_job.

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