spidra_cancel_crawl

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: partial preservation of processed pages (retrievable via spidra_crawl_pages) and credit refunds for unprocessed pages. This helps the agent understand the consequences. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. It consists of two sentences, each contributing meaningful information (what is canceled and the consequences). No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is simple—one parameter, no output schema. The description explains the immediate effect (cancellation), the state of processed pages, and the refund policy. It does not describe the response format, but that is not critical for a cancel action. It could mention edge cases (e.g., canceling a completed job), but that is a minor gap.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, jobId, with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the format or source of jobId beyond its name. However, the context of 'cancel a crawl job' makes it clear the parameter identifies the job. Since the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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 cancels a crawl job, using a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('crawl job'), and qualifies the state ('queued or running'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like spidra_check_crawl_status or spidra_crawl.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: for queued or running crawl jobs. This implies it is not for canceled or completed jobs, and not for batch jobs (which have their own cancel tool). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the usage clear.

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