cancel_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a state precondition but says nothing about whether cancellation is reversible, whether a running job's partial output is retained, whether the call blocks until the job stops, or what errors occur for ineligible states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what the return looks like, whether the operation is idempotent, or how to handle a job that has already finished.

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 parameter, and the description adds nothing about job_id — not its format, nor that it is a job identifier rather than a video identifier, which is a real ambiguity given siblings like submit_video and save_video in the same family.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource ("Cancel ... job") with an added scope qualifier enumerating the valid job states (scheduled, queued, running). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling delete_job, so an agent must infer whether cancel and delete differ.

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 state list implies when the tool applies (only non-terminal jobs), which is useful, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do for an already-completed job, and no routing to delete_job or retry_job as alternatives.

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