cancel_job

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

Annotations already convey the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the scheduled-task scope but does not explain effects on a running task, whether the schedule entry is removed, or error behavior; no contradiction with annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 core call is clear, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits expected behavior after cancellation and source of task_id, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does tie the single task_id parameter to 'a scheduled task,' but it does not say where the ID comes from or what format it uses. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory enough to make this minimally viable.

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 resource ('a scheduled task'), making the operation immediately clear. It is semantically distinct from sibling tools like schedule_job, list_jobs, and run_job_now without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 context of a task being scheduled implies when to use the tool, but the description gives no explicit guidance on prerequisites or alternatives. It does not tell an agent to use list_jobs to find the task_id or mention differences from run_job_now, leaving usage to inference.

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