arsenkin_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'request cancellation' and scopes to queued/running jobs, but does not disclose whether cancellation is asynchronous, idempotent, or what happens if the job is already completed.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the action and clearly identifying the target resource.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the lack of annotations and parameter details leaves gaps around cancellation semantics and edge cases, such as what occurs if the job is not in a cancellable state.

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 schema provides no description for job_id, and the description does not explain where to find it, its format, or how it relates to the 'principal's job'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clear verb ('Request cancellation') and a specific resource ('principal's queued or running Arsenkin job'), making it distinct from sibling tools like submit, status, or get_result.

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 use when a job is queued or running and cancellation is desired, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as checking status first.

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