screenstudio_export_cancel

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 mutation-but-safe profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds that the source project is preserved, which clarifies the scope of the side effect. It does not say what happens to partial output files or whether cancellation is reversible, so it adds context but not full behavioral detail.

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 that states the action and its key non-effect with zero waste.

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 simple one-parameter mutation, the description plus annotations cover the essentials (what it does, that it is non-destructive). However, it omits what happens to the job/output after cancellation and any prerequisite state, leaving some gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 jobId parameter, so the description carries the burden; it implies a job identifier is required but adds no format, sourcing, or lookup detail beyond the schema's uuid type and pattern. Baseline 3 for a single-param tool where the schema already constrains the type.

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) and resource (export job), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling export_start/export_status/export_frame/export_variants tools. The qualifier 'known' hints that the job must already exist, but the description stops short of naming siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the job must be running), and no comparison to alternatives such as letting an export finish or re-running export_start. Usage is only loosely implied by 'known export job'.

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