cutbolt_job_cancel

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further: cancellation is a soft request that publication can race and win, it does not delete final output, and it is safe to repeat. These are genuinely additive behavioral facts an agent needs to interpret the result correctly.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the polling/race semantics. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it covers scope, async behavior, race conditions, and repeat safety. It omits any mention of required permissions or what a successful cancellation response contains, which would round it out.

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 100%, so both job_id and job_root are already documented, and the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 (cancel) and resource (job) and narrows scope to 'queued/running' jobs, which cleanly separates it from siblings like cutbolt_job_status, cutbolt_job_wait, and cutbolt_job_resume. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the 'without deleting final output' clause disambiguates it from any delete/prune operation.

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?

'Poll until cancelled or completed' gives clear operational context for how to use the tool after calling it, and the race note tells the agent the outcome is not guaranteed. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over cutbolt_job_status or cutbolt_job_resume, so no explicit exclusion guidance is present.

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