cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety basics. It adds that cancellation is scoped to session-owned jobs and framed as a request, but it does not clarify whether cancellation is immediate or graceful, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the job has already completed.

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 a single tightly written sentence with no redundant material. The scope limitation is front-loaded and easy to act on.

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 the description does not need to explain return values. For a one-parameter cancellation tool, the key missing context is behavioral: what 'request cancellation' means operationally and how the agent should obtain a valid job_id. The scope constraint is helpful, but the description is only minimally complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, job_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description helps by implying that job_id refers to a session-owned job rather than an arbitrary PID, but it does not specify the identifier format or whether job_id comes from get_job or another listing tool. It adds some useful meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and resource ('a job'), and adds a meaningful scope constraint ('owned by this server session, never an arbitrary PID'). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_job or list_profiles. The only slight weakness is that 'request cancellation' leaves the exact effect somewhat open-ended.

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 phrase 'never an arbitrary PID' gives a useful exclusion: do not use this for arbitrary process termination. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_job, nor does it describe preconditions beyond session ownership. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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