My suggestion would be to not give the person an abstract personal characterization. Instead, speak specifically about a particular, concrete action that the person takes, at the moment s?he takes it.
For example, if s?he blows smoke in your face then say that you don't like that -- at the moment when your face is engulfed in smoke.
It is far more helpful, IMHO, to point out particular actions that interfere with your working relationship (in your opinion) than it is to simply express your frustration generally, characterizing the person as difficult to work with. And this is true regardless of how much you sugar-coat things.
It is constructive to point specifically to what the person does (particular actions) that you feel interfere with your working together. And it is helpful to do that when the action is fresh. This is fair to the other person: it gives your colleague an opportunity to discuss the interaction specifically.
You might even be surprised to learn that there is another side to things... It takes (at least) two to work well together.
That kind of progress rarely happens when one person just labels the other uncooperative or whatever. At best, such labeling might lead to a constructive discussion of particular past interactions, but such discussion is more fruitful if it takes place fresh and not a month or a year after the fact.
(This is the same approach you might take with your pet dog, BTW. You would not expect your dog to get it, if you tried to complain about its behavior in a general way and long after an incident.)
And yes, my answer has little or nothing to do with English language & usage. I still offer it. Don't just look for a word to characterize someone or something you dislike. Communicate using specifics instead. Maybe you will then have questions about terminology for specific actions, and maybe then I'll have something more EL&U-y to offer as an answer.