Cancel pending publish job

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the cancellation is 'durable' and excludes running jobs, while annotations already flag the operation as destructive and idempotent. This gives the agent a clear safety model without contradicting the schema. The limitation is that it does not describe post-cancellation effects or error handling, so a score of 4 reflects good but not exhaustive transparency.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('durably cancel one exact pending job') and then adds the key constraint ('never interrupts a running AutoCAD plot'). There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotations. This scores 5.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% parameter coverage), annotations that establish destructiveness and idempotency, and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria and behavioral guarantees. It explains what the tool does, when it applies (pending), and what it avoids (running), which is sufficient for an agent to decide. It could mention prerequisites like obtaining plan_id and manifest_sha256 from prior steps, but the schema already indicates these are required and exact, so the description is contextually complete enough.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, including patterns and validation constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'one exact pending job' reinforces the need for exact identifiers but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Thus the parameter semantics score remains 3.

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 identifies the tool as canceling a publish job, specifies it applies to pending jobs only, and distinguishes itself from any tool that could affect running plots. It includes a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the addition 'never interrupts a running AutoCAD plot' helps disambiguate from generic cancel operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for a single pending job that must be canceled. It explicitly excludes running plots, giving a when-not condition. However, it does not mention alternative tools for batch cancellation or handling running jobs, so it falls short of full guidance; the sibling list includes other publishing tools but no other cancel tool.

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