Cancel background job

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description reveals the mechanism (SIGTERM to process group) and warns that partial file/external changes are not rolled back. This adds valuable context about side effects and non-reversibility, going beyond the generic destructive flag.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by a key side-effect warning. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or vagueness.

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 destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it does, how it works, and what is not rolled back. It lacks explicit error conditions or post-cancel status, but sibling tools (box_job_status) can cover those, making it adequate for the 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters box_id and job_id beyond their names. The phrase 'running background job' hints that job_id must refer to an active job, but it does not elaborate on format, constraints, or how to obtain valid IDs. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate sufficiently.

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 clearly states the action: 'Send SIGTERM to a running background job and its process group.' It identifies the specific verb (send SIGTERM), the resource (background job), and adds scope (process group). This distinguishes it from siblings like box_stop or box_job_start by focusing on cancellation.

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 implies usage: it is for canceling a running background job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like box_stop or box_job_status, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The name and context make the purpose evident, but explicit guidance is missing.

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