cancel_training_job

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'Progress stops' and checkpoints remain available via get_training_job_result. It also documents the exact backing endpoint. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The endpoint and the post-cancellation behavior each add distinct, non-redundant value. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is complete. It states what the tool cancels, what endpoint it backs, what happens to progress, and how to retrieve prior outputs. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but there is only one parameter: job_id. The endpoint path includes {job_id}, and the description indirectly clarifies that job_id identifies the training job to cancel. However, no format, source, or additional guidance for job_id is provided. For a self-evident single identifier, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a queued or running training job.' This clearly identifies the action and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as get_training_job_status, resume_training_job, and edit_training_job. Even without naming siblings, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a training job is queued or running and needs cancellation. It also provides a useful behavioral contrast by noting that get_training_job_result still returns checkpoints, guiding the agent to a complementary tool after cancellation. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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