Cancel a background delegation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, clearly indicating a destructive operation. The description adds 'running' as a state constraint, which is useful. However, it omits key behavioral details like whether the job is killed immediately or gracefully, whether it can be undone, or what happens to any partial results. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action, though it is extremely terse, which might leave some ambiguity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations covering destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context about side effects, job state requirements, and the return value or confirmation. It should do more to help an agent understand when and how to use it safely.

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 the single parameter job_id is fully documented in the schema, including that it comes from codex_delegate. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Terminate) and resource (running background delegation), which is clearer than the title. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like codex_job_status or codex_job_result, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description gives no context about the conditions under which cancellation is appropriate, such as whether the job must be running or what happens if it has already completed.

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