cancel_job

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains that the worker terminates the native process tree, saves partial sweep results, releases a solver slot, and only then reports cancelled. This aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false by clarifying that repeated cancellation is safe and partial results are preserved.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and polling requirement appear first, followed by side effects and safety details. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key side effects, safety profile, and effect on finished jobs. It could be slightly more complete by naming job_status as the polling mechanism or describing the cancellation response, but the core operational context is present.

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 only parameter is job_id, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not document the parameter at all. However, the parameter is self-explanatory in the context of cancelling a job, making the definition minimally adequate rather than misleading.

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 states a specific verb and resource: request cancellation of a job. It also distinguishes the operation from job inspection by noting that finished jobs are unchanged and that cancellation is followed by polling until the state becomes cancelled.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for cancellation and notes that finished jobs are unchanged, which implicitly excludes completed jobs. It also states that repeated cancellation is safe, but it does not explicitly name job_status or another sibling as the polling alternative.

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