lingie_cancel_run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical non-obvious behavior: the engine executes one task at a time, and canceling may interrupt the currently running task rather than the requested one. This is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency an agent needs.

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 short, direct, and front-loads the purpose. Every clause adds value: the action, the engine limitation, the possible mismatch between run_id and the affected task, and the confirmation requirement. No unnecessary filler.

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 most important contextual risk and explains why caution is needed. It does not describe return behavior or error cases, but the operation is simple enough that the core context is largely complete.

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 100%, with run_id documented as '要取消的 run_id'. The tool description adds no additional parameter format or value constraints, but the schema already provides sufficient 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 clearly states a specific action, '取消' (cancel), on a specific resource, a Lingji generation task. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like run_status or run_workflow, and the warning emphasizes the real effect of the operation.

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 gives clear usage context: cancellation is global to the local ComfyUI engine and may affect a different task than the specified run_id. It explicitly tells the agent to confirm before calling, which is strong guidance, though it doesn't enumerate exact when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.