edit_queued_job

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the job is removed from the queue, a new prompt_id is assigned, and the old prompt_id is removed. It also notes the constraint that running jobs cannot be edited, though it does not detail authentication or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence is essential.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the main behavior, parameter usage, and constraints. It could mention the implication of acquiring a new prompt_id on job tracking but is sufficient overall.

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, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the difference between workflow and node_inputs parameters and providing an example for node_inputs. It also clarifies the position parameter default.

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 (edit) and resource (pending queue item) using specific verbs and resource references. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_queued_job or move_queued_job by specifying the behavior of removing and re-enqueuing.

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 context that only PENDING jobs can be edited and that running jobs cannot, and offers two methods (complete replacement or patches). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like cancel+enqueue or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to other sibling tools.

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