aap_cancel_job

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses a two-step confirmation flow: the first call returns a confirmation prompt, and a second call with a token returns success. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the schema or 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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It includes only necessary information and is immediately scannable, with no wasted words.

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 a simple tool and an output schema (str), the description covers purpose, confirmation workflow, parameters, and return type. It lacks edge-case details like error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this operation and the description is otherwise 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?

The schema provides only a basic description for job_id and none for confirmation_token. The description explains the confirmation token's purpose ('Token from first call') and ties the parameters into the workflow, significantly aiding parameter understanding beyond what the schema offers.

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 action ('Cancel a running AAP job') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch or relaunch. The phrase 'Requires confirmation' adds an important extra layer of specificity.

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 (for cancelling running jobs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like relaunch or conditions when not to use. The guidance is minimal, relying on the tool name and context rather than explicit instructions.

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