Cancels a pending Jw_cad job without changes. Use it to stop a queued drawing operation, returning a not-executed status instead of altering the file.
Cancel a job: Jw_cad reports 未実行 and changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| exchange | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral fact — that cancellation causes Jw_cad to report 未実行 and leaves the drawing unchanged — but omits whether the job record is removed, state requirements, and what role reason/exchange play.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though the cryptic 未実行 phrase mildly reduces immediate comprehensibility.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on three parameters, the description is far too thin. It provides one behavioral note but leaves parameter semantics and usage context essentially unaddressed.
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% across three parameters, and the description mentions none of them (job_id, reason, exchange). The reference to 'a job' only implicitly maps to job_id via the tool name and adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
"Cancel a job" names a specific verb and resource, and the appended note about Jw_cad reporting 未実行 clarifies the side effect. It is distinguishable from siblings like gaihen_jobs or gaihen_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as the job needing to be in a cancellable state. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Cancel'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.