Cancel job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the crucial nuance that cancellation stops work but does not delete already-saved captures, which bounds the blast radius. It also discloses return behavior and the unknown-identifier error case. It does not say whether cancellation is immediate or a graceful drain, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: effect, when-to-use, alternative, return/limits. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return ('updated job object or an error for an unknown identifier') as well as the disk side effect. For a one-parameter tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Single job_id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it as an identifier from a queue operation. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the parameter, so baseline 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 ('Request cancellation of a capture or transcription job') plus the scope of effect ('keeping partial outputs on disk'). An agent can distinguish it from get_job_status without reading either schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('use when the user wants work stopped') and an explicitly named alternative with its own condition ('use get_job_status to inspect progress without cancelling'). No inference required.

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