Cancel Job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine new behavior: child processes are stopped before cancellation is reported (synchronous completion semantics) and partial artifacts are retained (post-cancel state). It stops short of noting permission requirements or the error outcome for already-completed or unknown job ids.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the scoping constraint plus the process-stop guarantee are front-loaded before the artifact-retention note. Every clause conveys information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no explanation, and the destructive/async semantics are largely covered. The remaining gap is failure-mode context: behavior when the job is already complete, already cancelled, or not owned by this server is unstated, which matters for a non-idempotent destructive tool.

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% for the single jobId parameter (uuid format, pattern, and its own description), so the schema already carries the burden. The description only adds the qualifier that the id refers to an active preparation or solver job, which is marginal added meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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) applied to a specific resource (an active preparation or solver job) and adds an ownership scope ('owned by this server'). The read-oriented siblings (inspect_job, list_jobs, query_results) are clearly a different operation class, so an agent can select this tool without opening a 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?

The word 'active' implies the precondition that only running jobs are cancellable, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to cancel versus wait, no mention of what to call instead (e.g. inspect_job to check status first), and no note on what happens if the job is already finished or unknown.

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