cancel_audio_job

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it scopes the operation to local audio analysis and states that the partial run directory is preserved, telling the agent what survives the cancel.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the preservation guarantee immediately following. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema and full annotation coverage, so return values and safety traits need not be restated. The description supplies the one piece of behavioral information annotations cannot convey—that partial results are preserved—making it nearly complete for a one-parameter cancel operation.

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_id parameter is well described ('Queued/running audio job whose own worker to stop'). The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Cancel local audio analysis') and adds the outcome ('preserve its partial run directory'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'stop' or 'get_audio_job', but no other cancel-style tool exists in the sibling list, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_audio_job to inspect state first, or stop for playback). The schema hints the job must be queued/running, but the description itself provides no preconditions or exclusions.

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