Cancel Processing Job

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the idempotentHint annotation: it explains the asynchronous nature (state turns 'cancelled' once QGIS has stopped it) and that outputs already written remain on disk. This gives the agent important expectations about the effect and side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the resulting state, and the fate of outputs. It does not discuss edge cases like cancelling a non-running job, but the annotation covers idempotency, so the missing details are minor.

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?

The schema has one parameter, job_id, with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not explain what job_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. The agent must infer from the tool name and siblings that job_id is likely an identifier returned by start_processing_job or get_processing_job, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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 clearly states the action (ask a running background job to stop) and the resource (running background job). It distinguishes from siblings like get_processing_job and start_processing_job by specifying the cancellation behavior and the resulting state change.

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 tool is for running jobs, and the phrase 'Ask a running background job to stop' gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the focus on 'running' is sufficient guidance for most agents.

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