cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, setting a lower bar. The description adds genuine side-effect context not in the annotations: temporary files get cleaned and a completed artifact is retained. It still omits what happens to the job's recorded state, whether the call is idempotent, and error behavior for an unknown or already-finished job.

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 short sentences, action first, then the retention nuance. Every clause carries meaning and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the eligible job states, and the cleanup/retention outcome, which is close to sufficient. It could still say what the tool returns or how it behaves on a missing/already-completed job.

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% for the single required job_id, so the description carries the full burden of documenting it and says nothing: no format, no source (e.g., where job_id comes from), no example. The name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from a 1, but the low coverage is uncompensated.

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 (queued or running local video job) and even scopes which job states are eligible. It stops short of naming or contrasting a sibling like job_status, so an agent gets the action but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'queued or running' implies when the tool applies and the retention clause hints at the edge case of completed jobs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the alternative job_status for inspecting a job first, and no prerequisites.

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