katto_cancel_job

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

Annotations already disclose idempotency and destructiveness, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the quota refund effect, the retry safety, and the specific terminal-state errors. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct information: what it does, retry behavior, and failure conditions. No filler or repetition; the critical action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is functionally complete. It covers preconditions, side effects, and error states. The only minor gap is the lack of any statement about what a successful response looks like, but that is not critical with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is already well described as the job id from katto_create_clip_job. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and precise resource ('still-running job'), plus a clear outcome ('refund the video back to your monthly quota'). This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools like get_job, list_jobs, and create_clip_job.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for jobs in queued/processing state. It also explains the boundary condition by listing when it will error (finished, failed, cancelled), which implicitly tells the agent not to call it in those states. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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