cancel_job

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the nuance that cancellation does not undo past actions, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations; readOnlyHint=false aligns with the mutation. The description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the caveat about not undoing actions is placed second. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive tool with an optional confirm parameter, the description omits critical guidance on how confirm works and what the expected response is. Although an output schema exists, it does not cover parameter semantics. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional context on the confirm flag.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for job_id or confirm. The tool description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'confirm' (likely a safety flag). Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, this is a major gap.

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 clearly states the tool requests job cancellation, a specific verb and resource. The added clause 'Does not undo actions already performed' clarifies its scope and distinguishes it from merely inspecting jobs. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_jobs and get_job.

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 usage when a job needs to be cancelled, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference any alternative tools. There are no siblings that perform cancellation, so no exclusions are given. The guidance is sufficient for a straightforward action but lacks explicit context.

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