cancel fine tuning job

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive, and the description adds substantial context: metering stops, status becomes CANCELLED, cancel is authoritative despite backend lag, backend errors do not block local cancel, permissions require OWNER/ADMIN minting user, 404/400 cases, feature-flag gating, and scopes not enforced. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then organized caveats (return, status, errors, permissions, backend behavior). The length is justified because every sentence adds an operationally relevant detail for a cancellation endpoint.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: full HTTP semantics, success response, failure modes, auth context, idempotency, backend behavior, and feature-flag behavior. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'The job id.' The description references {id} in the DELETE path but does not add much semantic detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a queued or running fine-tuning job'), includes the HTTP path, and explicitly distinguishes this from deletion ('This is a CANCEL, not a delete — the job record remains listed'). It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like cancel_batch or delete_alias.

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 explicit conditions for use: queued or running jobs, and when-not: SUCCEEDED or FAILED jobs return 400, while already-CANCELLED jobs are idempotent. It also clarifies it is not a delete operation, which is the main alternative behavior an agent might confuse.

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