Cancel an in-progress compel. Dequeues it if still queued, otherwise cancels any active external (AI provider) tasks and transitions it to CANCELLED. Idempotent - cancelling an already-CANCELLED compel succeeds. Use to stop a mis-prompted or runaway job before it consumes more render minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compel_id | Yes | The compel ID to cancel |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explains dequeuing behavior, cancellation of external AI tasks, state transition to CANCELLED, and idempotency. This level of transparency helps the agent understand side effects and safety, fully complementing 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?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear statement of the action, technical details in the middle, and a practical use case at the end. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 cancellation tool, the description covers the essential behavior, idempotency, and usage rationale. However, it does not clarify behavior for a compel that is not in-progress (e.g., already COMPLETED), though the idempotency statement partially addresses this. Overall, it is complete but leaves minor edge cases unexplained.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'compel_id' with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool cancels an in-progress compel, specifying the resource and the resulting CANCELLED state. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like create_compel or get_compel, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to stop a mis-prompted or runaway job before it consumes more render minutes.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action or resource. Groups like compels, lighting cues, webhooks, and account are clearly separated, and even similar tools (create_compel vs create_compel_from_music) have well-defined differences in input source.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., cancel_compel, launch_lighting_cue, register_webhook). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.
With 30 tools, the server is above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the scope includes multiple subdomains, the high number adds cognitive load and risks selection errors for an agent.
Core workflows are present (create, read, cancel, list, search, render), but missing update/delete for compels and media, and no way to modify render configuration beyond defaults.