cancelJob

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation. It does not say whether cancellation is reversible, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the job already completed or failed, or whether any permission is required. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but the core mutation semantics are missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the identifier format follows the operation rather than burying it. It may be slightly too terse given what is left unsaid about the mutation.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the minimum needed to invoke it correctly. It falls short on lifecycle semantics — job state at cancellation, post-cancel behavior — which matter for a cancel operation with no annotations.

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% and the single parameter already documents the 'jobs/{uid}' format and the pattern. The description only echoes the same format, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Cancel a tracked background job' — plus the identifier format, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from the related listJobs sibling, which would be the natural way to discover a job name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite that the job must exist and be in a cancellable state, and no pointer to listJobs for obtaining a valid name. The only implied context is the word 'tracked'.

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