cancel_queued_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly discloses the tool's behavior: removes a pending job and does not affect running ones. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid prompt_id, but for a simple cancellation, this is sufficient.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and target. Extremely concise and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to specify the job, and a critical behavioral constraint (no effect on running jobs).

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 100% with a clear parameter description for prompt_id. The tool description adds minimal extra value by reiterating 'by prompt_id', but the schema already provides full semantics.

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 the action (Remove), the target (specific pending job from ComfyUI queue), and the key constraint (by prompt_id). It also distinguishes itself by noting it does not affect running jobs, which differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_job or clear_queue.

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 implies usage context (only pending jobs) and explicitly states it does not affect running jobs, giving clear conditions. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling tools.

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