Cancel Design Job

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

The description adds crucial behavior beyond the annotations: cancellation is best-effort and only takes effect at the next stage boundary, and a completed job returns terminal with cancelled=false. These details materially change how an agent should interpret the result and are not derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Three compact sentences: action first, then the best-effort caveat, then the result semantics. Every sentence contributes and there is no filler.

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 job control tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its non-atomic stop behavior, and how terminal jobs are reported. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so job_id is already fully documented as the identifier returned by submit_design_job. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a background design job') and ties it to the sibling that creates the job ('submit_design_job'). An agent can distinguish this from get_design_status or list_design_patterns without opening any schema.

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?

It establishes the prerequisite that the job must have been started with submit_design_job and explains the outcome for already-finished jobs, which implicitly tells the agent when cancellation is moot. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., get_design_status to check first), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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