ksp_editor_cancel_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side effect that partially generated parts are retained rather than discarded, but says nothing about what happens if the job is already finished, whether the call is idempotent, or any authentication/error behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and with zero padding. Slightly dense jargon ('frame-sliced editor build') but no wasted words.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key outcome (partial parts preserved) but omits parameter meaning and failure/return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameter job_id is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer that job_id refers to the build being cancelled and that it must be currently active.

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 ('Stop') and a specific resource ('an active frame-sliced editor build'), which separates it from the read-only sibling ksp_editor_job_status. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'keep the parts already generated for inspection or cleanup' implies the situation in which you would cancel rather than clear (ksp_editor_clear) or poll (ksp_editor_job_status), but no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given.

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