agda_job_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect (slot release) but leaves open permissions, behavior on already-completed/unknown jobs, and whether the job's results become unrecoverable.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by adding the side-effect detail.

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 cancel tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and effect sufficiently to invoke it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior for non-pending jobs.

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 'job' parameter is already documented as 'Job id returned by a pending tool result'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 ('Abort') and resource ('a pending Agda job') and adds the concrete effect ('release its Agda command slot'). No sibling tool cancels jobs, and the description makes its distinct role obvious against agda_job_await / agda_job_status.

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 'pending' implicitly scopes usage to not-yet-completed jobs, which is genuinely useful guidance. But it never says what to do instead (agda_job_status to check state, agda_job_await to wait) or how it behaves on non-pending jobs.

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