Cancel Job

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 usefully discloses that cancellation is 'best effort provider-side' and that the tool is 'always terminal here', giving the agent a clear mental model of the operation's guarantees and limits.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the additional behavioral nuance is packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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 tool with a single required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action and key behavior, but it omits important operational details like what happens if the job is already terminal or the job_id is invalid. It is minimally viable but leaves the parameter semantics and error behavior unaddressed.

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 only parameter, job_id, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its format, origin, or how to obtain a valid value. The description only mentions 'a running job', leaving the agent to infer what job_id should be.

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 ('Cancel') and a clear resource ('a running job'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like get_job and list_jobs. The behavior is not confused with any other tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking status with get_job first or handling jobs that are already terminal. The intended context is only implied by the phrase 'running job'.

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