Cancel a held print job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is smaller. It still adds two useful facts beyond them: only *held* jobs are cancellable, and the match must resolve to exactly one job — an ambiguity constraint an agent would not otherwise know.

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 short clauses: the action with its matching rule first, the safety guardrail second. No redundant restatement of the title and nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the identifier semantics, the uniqueness requirement, and a permission-style guardrail. Minor gap: it doesn't state what the agent should do if zero or several jobs match (e.g., list candidates via eprint_status).

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 coverage is 0% for the single `document` parameter, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, clarifying that the value is a *substring* of the document name rather than an exact or ID-based identifier. It does not clarify tie-breaking or case sensitivity when multiple jobs partially match.

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 and resource ("Cancel ... held print jobs") plus the matching mechanism (partial document name). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings eprint_status and eprint_submit, which read or create jobs rather than removing 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?

"Only call when the user asked for it" gives an explicit gating condition for a destructive action, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., use eprint_status first to identify the job), so it is clear context without a routing rule.

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