Cancel Action Job

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses exactly which phases stop ('process-models stops before the next model'), what state unstarted models end in ('marked cancelled'), the non-interruptible boundary ('a single running Revit operation finishes'), and the durability guarantee ('completed changes stay committed'). This is the operational detail needed when the destructiveHint alone would be ambiguous.

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?

Two sentences, the imperative action front-loaded and the three behavioral consequences packed into one semicolon-separated clause. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the behavioral narrative plus destructive/idempotency annotations cover the safety profile well. The remaining gap is parameter meaning (process_id, document) and routing against revit_batch_cancel, which leaves the definition slightly short of fully self-sufficient.

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 only 33% — only the optional 'document' parameter carries a description, and 'job_id' and 'process_id' are bare. The description gives a clue that job_id identifies an 'action job' but says nothing about process_id's role or how document interacts with a job cancellation, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource: 'Request cancellation of an action jobId', which is precise about what is cancelled. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling revit_batch_cancel (nor revit_process_models / revit_run_actions), so an agent cannot tell the two cancellation entry points apart from the description alone.

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 only implied: the description explains what happens when cancellation is requested, which helps an agent judge the consequences, but it names no condition for choosing this tool over revit_batch_cancel or waiting for revit_batch_status/revit_jobs. No when-not guidance is given.

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