cancel_job

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: partial result is discarded and not recoverable, does not remove pending/queued jobs, requires reachable server, and returns confirmation or no-op. No contradictions.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the primary action, then details consequences, constraints, and alternatives. 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?

Given a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, conditionals, return value, and distinctions from siblings. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the effect of providing prompt_id (only interrupts matching job) versus omitting it (interrupts whatever is running).

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 uses a specific verb ('Interrupt') and resource ('CURRENTLY RUNNING ComfyUI job'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by naming cancel_queued_job and clear_queue with different scopes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for actively executing job) and provides direct alternatives: cancel_queued_job for a specific pending job and clear_queue for all pending jobs. Also explains the optional prompt_id filter.

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