cancel_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: it states that Studio subprocesses are terminated, which is behavior an agent would not infer from 'destructiveHint: false' (a hint that arguably undersells the irreversible, work-aborting nature of a cancel). It says nothing about idempotency, partial results, or what remains of the job afterwards.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then appends the side effect. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 action tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its main consequence, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of what an agent would want before committing an irreversible operation: whether cancellation is idempotent, whether it can be undone, and what the caller receives. The mismatch between 'terminate subprocesses' and destructiveHint=false is left unexplained.

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% and the single parameter is documented only by its type and the title 'Job Id'. The description never mentions job_id, where it comes from, or its format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. The parameter is self-evident from the tool name, which keeps this from being a 1, but the description adds no meaning.

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) plus the resource (job) and narrows the scope to jobs that are queued or running, and it names a concrete side effect (terminating Studio subprocesses). No sibling tool (get_job, start_slice, open_in_studio) performs cancellation, so the agent can place it unambiguously.

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' implicitly defines which jobs this tool is valid for, which is light usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., permissions, whether the caller must own the job), and no guidance about what to do instead for already-completed jobs.

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