Cancel an unsubmitted prepared note task by job ID and close its edit page without deleting published notes; reject already submitted or unresolved jobs.
取消尚未提交的本地准备任务。关闭对应编辑页，不删除任何已发布笔记；拒绝重置已提交或结果不明的任务。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that published notes are not deleted and that submitted/unknown-outcome jobs are refused, which tells the agent about state-dependent refusal 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?
Two tight sentences with the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed by the key non-effect and refusal condition. 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?
Preconditions and side effects are well covered, which is the most important context for a cancellation tool. However, there is no guidance on where job_id comes from or what identifies a valid target, leaving a gap for an agent that needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 job_id parameter is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer that job_id identifies the preparation job; the description adds no format, source, or identifier semantics beyond that implication.
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+resource (cancel an unsubmitted local preparation job) and clarifies the side effect (closes the edit page, leaves published notes untouched). It is easily distinguished from prepare_note and publish_note, which handle submission/publication rather than cancellation.
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?
Clearly states the when: only tasks not yet submitted. Also states the when-not: submitted or unknown-result tasks are refused. It does not name an alternative sibling to use instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.