photoshop_job_cancel

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

Annotations already provide safety context: idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context by listing the job states that are valid targets for cancellation, but it does not disclose what happens to the job or related resources upon cancellation.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately communicates the tool's scope, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 cancel tool with an output schema and helpful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the target states and purpose, though it does not mention edge cases like idempotent cancellation of already-canceled jobs—though that is partly covered by idempotentHint.

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 does not explain job_id at all. However, the sole parameter is self-describing and the description's reference to 'job' makes the purpose of job_id reasonably inferable. Still, the description leaves all parameter semantics to the schema.

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') with a clear resource ('Photoshop job') and further narrows scope to 'queued, running, or awaiting-user' jobs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like photoshop_job_resume or photoshop_job_get.

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 the appropriate usage context by listing the job states that can be canceled, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives such as photoshop_job_resume. The usage guidance is adequate but only implicit.

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