cancel_job

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to state those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the job is not running, whether cancellation is reversible, or any side effects. It merely repeats the tool's purpose without enriching the user's understanding.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), but it provides little information beyond the tool's name. While it is front-loaded and has no wasted words, it lacks any substantive elaboration that would make it more useful to an agent. It is appropriately short for a simple tool but is under-specified.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety (destructive, idempotent), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not address edge cases like attempting to cancel a non-running or already-completed job, which could be important for an agent. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic cancel operation but lacks completeness in explaining behavior under all conditions.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (job_id), which is clearly documented as 'ID of the job to cancel.' The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific action ('Cancel') on a specific resource ('a running job'). It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_job_status' or 'list_jobs'. However, it does not specify the scope or types of jobs, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed jobs). It simply states the action without any contextual usage guidance.

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