crawl_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape but says nothing about idempotency, whether a finished job can be cancelled, whether cancellation is immediate, or permission requirements — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then scoped Args and Returns sections. Efficient, though the Returns line partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is covered. But for a mutation with no annotations, the description omits operational semantics (idempotency, post-cancel state) an agent would want.

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, and it does: it identifies job_id as 'the crawl job ID returned by crawl_start,' giving the agent both meaning and provenance for the sole parameter.

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 ('Cancel a running crawl job') that cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like crawl_start, crawl_status, and crawl_list. No explicit sibling reference is needed given the distinct action.

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 phrase 'running crawl job' implies a precondition (only an in-flight job can be cancelled), which is mild usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if the job already finished, and no routing to alternatives like crawl_and_wait.

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