cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key safety property: cancellation is scoped to the specified job and does not affect others. However, it does not mention whether cancellation is reversible, whether it only works on jobs in a particular state, or what happens if the job cannot be canceled. These are important gaps given no annotations are provided.

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 succinct at two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: one states scope, the other gives a practical use case. No redundancy or unnecessary 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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could benefit from specifying outcomes or failure modes (e.g., error if job already finished), but the provided context is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool in the common case.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions for owner, project, and job_id are adequate, and the 'running job' context slightly informs the job_id parameter.

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 clearly states 'Cancel a specific running CI/CD job without affecting other jobs in the pipeline,' specifying the verb (cancel), resource (CI/CD job), and scope (specific job). The second sentence reinforces the use case, distinguishing it from pipeline-level cancellation and restart alternatives.

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 provides clear context of when to use: 'Use this to stop a single job that is hanging or no longer needed.' It implies the alternative of canceling the entire pipeline by saying 'without affecting other jobs,' but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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