cancel_job

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds useful context by specifying that child processes are also stopped. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the scope of the destructive action, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and the scope of the effect. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: stopping the job and its child processes. It does not mention where to obtain the job_id, but the sibling tool list_jobs fills that gap naturally, so the definition is reasonably complete.

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%, and the description does not explain the job_id parameter beyond the schema's field name. While the parameter is simple and its purpose is inferable from the tool's name and description, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 verb ('Stop') and a clear resource ('a running job and its child processes'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_jobs, get_job_status, and run_sta_tcl, so an agent can immediately understand its role.

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 implies the tool should be used when a job is running and needs to be stopped, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_jobs or get_job_status for finding the job_id. The usage context is clear enough but not fully articulated.

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