cancel_export_when_supported

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-deterministic behavior ('Attempt to cancel' and possible fallback to reporting API limitations), which is a genuine behavioral trait. But it says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or what the response contains when cancellation succeeds versus fails.

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 that leads with the action and immediately qualifies the failure mode. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 no output schema, the description should explain outcomes, and it only partially does: it says it may 'report limitations' but not the shape of a successful cancellation result or error. Purpose and the key caveat are covered, leaving a gap on return semantics.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented parameter (job_id: 'Export job ID to cancel.'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or sourcing details (e.g., where to obtain job_id from get_export_status).

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 (cancel) and resource (export job), and explains the 'when_supported' hedge: for in-progress renders it may only report Premiere Pro 2019 API limitations. An agent can distinguish this from list/get export siblings. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools (get_export_status, get_export_capabilities) it sits alongside.

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?

Gives real context: it applies to a *queued* export job, and for in-progress renders it may be unavailable, in which case the tool surfaces an explicit API limitation. This is meaningful when-to-use/when-it-won't-work guidance, though it stops short of naming alternative tools or a fallback workflow.

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