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 it does disclose the real behavioral trait that termination is via SIGTERM (an abrupt signal, not a graceful drain). However, it omits whether the job is marked failed/cancelled, whether partial output in output_dir is retained or removed, whether the operation is idempotent, and what permissions are required — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 the action, target, and mechanism; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated destructive tool with two undocumented required parameters the definition is too thin. It should cover the effect on the job record and on files in output_dir, and irreversibility/idempotency.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'job_id' is only obliquely implied by 'a running job', and 'output_dir' — a required parameter on a cancel operation — is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess why a cancellation needs an output directory.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a running job') and adds the mechanism ('sending SIGTERM to its process'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_job_status and list_jobs. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state that it is the only mutating counterpart to start_* tools, 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?

Usage is only implied by the qualifier 'running' — an agent can infer that the job must be active for this to apply. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus purge_subject/prune_failed_subjects for cleanup, and no note on what happens if the job has already finished.

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