vastu_job_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical cost consequence: in-flight items can still finish and bill, while the cancel call itself does not charge. It stops short of covering idempotency, behavior on already-completed or already-cancelled jobs, and required permissions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the billing caveats. Every sentence adds a distinct, decision-relevant fact with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the billing caveat covers the main behavioral unknown. The remaining gap is that 'job items' (plural, item-level) sits uneasily against a job-level jobId without clarifying whether the whole job or selected items are cancelled.

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 jobId parameter is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains its format (vjob_ + 32 hex) or whether it addresses a job or an individual item. Low ambiguity because there is only one param, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Cancel ... job items') with an explicit scope qualifier ('unstarted'), which lets an agent distinguish it from status/results siblings. It doesn't name the sibling to use if the job is already in flight, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 'unstarted' qualifier implies when the tool is applicable and hints at the boundary case (already-started items), but there is no explicit direction such as checking vastu_job_status first or what to do if cancellation is partial. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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