cancel_queued_job

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is destructive (removes a job) and scoped to pending jobs only. It lacks details on error handling (e.g., if prompt_id is invalid or job not pending) and idempotency, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately convey the action and scope. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 deletion tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it targets (pending jobs), and what it avoids (running jobs). It could mention the return value or error behavior, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage, the description adds no new information beyond what is already in the schema. The schema already explains the prompt_id parameter, so the description's mention of 'by prompt_id' is redundant. 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 the action (remove), the specific resource (a pending job), and the method (by prompt_id). It also distinguishes from the sibling cancel_job by explicitly noting it does not affect running jobs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (to remove pending jobs) and what it does not affect (running jobs), implying it is not for running jobs. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative tool cancel_job for running jobs, which would improve clarity.

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