grok_agent_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one important trait—that the MCP server is not stopped—but it omits other critical details such as whether the job must be active, idempotency, error behavior, or return values. The added context is minimal and insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Boundedly' and 'without stopping the MCP server' add purposeful information, and the length is appropriately short for a simple, one-parameter tool.

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 cancellation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps: it does not state what happens on cancellation, whether it is synchronous, or what success/failure looks like. The presence of sibling polling/status tools implies a typical usage pattern, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 has one parameter (job_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention job_id at all. It only vaguely refers to 'typed job', which fails to explain how the parameter should be used or obtained. Since the schema is minimal and the description does not compensate, this is a significant 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'cancel' with a clear resource 'one typed job' and adds a scoping constraint 'without stopping the MCP server'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that start, poll, or delegate jobs.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage via the tool name and purpose, but it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. This is below the 'implied usage' threshold.

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