cancel-render

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, yet it says nothing about whether cancellation is immediate or graceful, whether partial output is discarded, whether it is idempotent on finished jobs, or what permissions are needed. It only restates the mutation implied by 'stop'.

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 action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 tool whose schema is fully documented, the essentials are present, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least describe the effect of cancellation and the expected result. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 jobId parameter is documented as coming from start-render, matching the description. The description adds no further syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Specific verb (stop) plus resource (a background render), and it ties itself to the sibling that creates such jobs (start-render), which separates it from render-status and render-frame. It doesn't explicitly contrast against other siblings, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 'started by start-render' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to call it, what to do if the job already finished, or how it relates to render-status. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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