Cancel Job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds the useful scoping constraint that only running jobs can be canceled, but it does not disclose potential side effects or failure behavior beyond that.

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 one short sentence that immediately communicates the operation and adds the key qualifier 'running' beyond the title. There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter, destructive operation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and relevant annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the target and state constraint, though it could be more complete with a note about cancellation effects or error 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 input schema fully documents job_id as the ID of the job to cancel, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific action (cancel) and a specific resource (a running job), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling job-related tools like submit_batch_job, get_job_status, list_jobs, and get_job_log.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking job status first with get_job_status or retrieving logs with get_job_log. It only implies the tool is for running jobs, but does not explain prerequisites, ordering, or when cancellation is not appropriate.

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