Cancel agent job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully narrows the blast radius ('one ... job', not the server), but says nothing about what happens to in-flight work or partial results, so it adds modest context on top of the annotations.

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 with no padding, which is structurally good, but 'Boundedly' and 'typed' are undefined terms that cost the reader more than they convey.

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, no-output-schema mutation whose annotations carry the safety semantics, the essentials are nearly there: it says what is cancelled and that the server survives. It still omits how a job_id is obtained and what a successful cancel returns.

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 required job_id, and the description supplies nothing about it — no format, no source (presumably from grok_agent_start or grok_agent_poll), no validity/lifetime conditions. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('cancel one ... job') and scopes it against a sibling-adjacent action by saying it does not stop the MCP server. The qualifiers 'boundedly' and 'typed' are undefined jargon, so the action is clear but the modifiers add noise rather than precision.

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 only usage signal is the implicit contrast 'without stopping the MCP server', which hints at a when-not condition but names no alternative tool (e.g., grok_agent_session_end or grok_delegate_* teardown paths) and gives no prerequisites such as needing a live job_id.

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