comfy_cancel_jobs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the v0.26+ version requirement and legacy fallback, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explain the fallback mechanism, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and version. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 an output schema, the description covers the core function and scope. It leaves the 'legacy fallback' ambiguity unexplained, but the essential behavior is clear.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential context that job_ids refers to the running or queued jobs to cancel. It gives meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Job Ids' title, but does not detail expected format, count, or constraints.

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 ('Cancel') with a clear resource ('multiple running or queued jobs') and adds version context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like comfy_cancel_run (single job) and comfy_clear_queue (clears entire queue) by explicitly stating 'multiple'.

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 the tool is for canceling multiple jobs but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like comfy_cancel_run or comfy_interrupt. There is no when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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