cancel_job

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the cancellation action and the eligible job states; it does not mention whether cancellation is reversible, whether it has side effects on the job's output, or whether canceling an already-finished job is an error. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds useful meaning by specifying both the target ('job') and the eligible states ('en cola o en ejecución').

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves important gaps: it does not cover cancellation outcomes, edge cases, prerequisites, or behavior after the job is canceled. For a mutating tool, this is not complete enough for an agent to safely understand its effects.

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 single parameter job_id is documented in the schema only as a string, and the description adds no extra meaning about how to obtain it or how it maps to the job being canceled. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clear verb ('Cancela') and resource ('job') and narrows the scope to jobs 'en cola o en ejecución'. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like get_job or wait_job, but its purpose is still clear and unambiguous.

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 'en cola o en ejecución' gives some context about when cancel_job applies: queued or running jobs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as waiting with wait_job or inspecting status with get_job.

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