Stop a job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context with 'Work already done is kept,' telling the agent that partial results survive the stop — the key behavioral question for a cancellation tool. It does not say what happens to queued-but-not-started work or what the call returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded and the retention guarantee immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter cancellation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the one non-obvious fact (work is retained). Minor gaps remain around queued-vs-running behavior and the response, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the jobId property already documents its source (get_overview / wait_for_jobs). The description adds no format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (stop) and resource (queued or running background job) and enumerates job types (rank check, AI generation, import), which scopes it well against siblings like clear_jobs and wait_for_jobs. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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' implies the applicable state, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer clear_jobs or wait_for_jobs, and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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