stem_job_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key destructive trait beyond the name: it removes half-written stems, not just stops the process. However, it omits other behavioral context such as whether the action is reversible, what state the job record ends in, and what happens if the job is already finished or failed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'Stop a running separation and remove its half-written stems' delivers the action and the cleanup side effect in under ten words, and every element earns its place.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It captures the core action but lacks prerequisites (job must be running), post-conditions, the role of job_dir, and any sense of the return value or error behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not clarify what job_id refers to beyond context, and job_dir (an optional parameter) is entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess its purpose and whether it must match a value from a status call.

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 uses specific verbs ('Stop', 'remove') with concrete resources ('a running separation', 'its half-written stems'), clearly identifying this as a job-cancellation and cleanup operation. It is readily distinguished from the siblings: separate_stems (creation), stem_job_status (monitoring), and stem_backends (listing), even though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a separation is running and you want to stop it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it (e.g., if the job already completed), no prerequisites (e.g., verifying the job is running via stem_job_status first), and no mention of alternatives.

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