cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely useful behavior: cancellation is deferred until after the current cell, and the in-flight cell cannot be interrupted. It stops short of what an agent still needs — resulting job state (cancelled vs failed), reversibility, and whether the call blocks until the cell finishes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the single constraint that matters. Nothing is padded and nothing competes for attention.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the deferred-cancellation behavior is covered. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should say what state the job ends in and where job_id comes from; without that, an agent can call it but cannot predict the outcome.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it says nothing about job_id: no format, no source (e.g., returned by run_cells or list_jobs), no requirement that the job be active. With one undocumented required parameter, this is a real gap.

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: 'Stop a background run', which an agent can distinguish from read-only siblings like job_status and list_jobs. The added scope note ('after its current cell') makes the semantics of 'stop' concrete, though it never names job_status/list_jobs as the discovery path for job_id.

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 this applies to a running background job, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (job must exist and be running), and no treatment of the already-finished or unknown job_id case. Alternatives such as job_status or run_cells are not mentioned.

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