cancel_lead_searchCancel a queued or running search job. Completed and failed jobs remain immutable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Queued or running job id. | |
| jobToken | Yes | Private token belonging to the job. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| canceledAt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Queued or running job id."Input schema / properties / jobToken / descriptionAdded value: +"Private token belonging to the job."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: only queued or running jobs are affected, and completed/failed jobs are immutable, which clarifies why the operation is idempotent for terminal states.
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?
Two sentences deliver the action, the resource scope, and an important caveat without any filler. The main verb and target are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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?
With an output schema present, both required parameters fully documented, and annotations covering safety profile, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke cancellation appropriately. The immutability caveat covers edge cases of completed/failed jobs.
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 provides full descriptions for both required parameters (id and jobToken) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('search job'), and further narrows scope to 'queued or running' jobs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_lead_search or get_lead_search.
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 implies when cancellation is valid by noting 'Completed and failed jobs remain immutable', which serves as a when-not. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or direct the agent to a different tool for other job states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.