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 burden. It does disclose the destructive action ('Abort') and the resource release side effect, which is helpful. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid or non-pending job IDs, nor what the response looks like after cancellation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning: the action, the target, and the consequence. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool, the description adequately covers purpose and effect. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., canceling a completed job), but given the simplicity of the tool and the rich parameter schema, it is nearly 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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'job' parameter as 'Job id returned by a pending tool result' (100% coverage). The description reinforces the requirement that the job must be pending but does not add new semantic information 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Abort' and clearly identifies the resource ('pending Agda job') plus a unique side effect ('release its Agda command slot'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling job management tools like agda_job_await, agda_job_status, and agda_job_list.

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 description implies the tool is for canceling pending jobs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like agda_job_await. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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