copy_job_cancel_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it targets a 'running' copy job, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether cancellation is graceful or forceful, whether it affects only the specified jobInstanceId, or what happens if the job is already finished. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clearly states the action. It could add a conditional phrase like 'if the run is still in progress', but as-is it is concise and direct.

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 destructive cancel operation with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the action and the required scoping identifiers exist in the schema. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether the cancellation is asynchronous, how to check completion afterward, or any error conditions. Given the destructiveHint annotation, extra context about safety and next steps would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (workspaceId, copyJobId, jobInstanceId). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying the operation as cancelling a run; the schema's field descriptions are sufficient.

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 'Cancel a running copy job' clearly states the verb (cancel) and resource (copy job run), and the name copy_job_cancel_run makes the intent explicit. It is distinguishable from copy_job_run and copy_job_get_run_status among siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage when a copy job run is running and needs to be cancelled, but it does not state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives such as copy_job_get_run_status for checking status first. The sibling naming pattern provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit routing guidance.

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