Cancel job

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds concrete behavioral detail by specifying that it kills the entire process group, which goes beyond the generic destructive hint and clarifies the blast radius.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core action and scope without any redundant words. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter explanations for job_id and reason, and any indication of return behavior, but the destructive/idempotent hints and process-group detail provide some context.

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?

Only grace_ms has a schema description; job_id and reason rely on name inference. The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings or relationships, and with only 33% schema coverage, this leaves important gaps for the agent.

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 uses the specific verb 'Kill' with the resource 'a running job' and clarifies the scope as 'its whole process group.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agy_start and agy_wait, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the word 'running,' but no explicit guidance or sibling comparison is provided.

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