Cancel or Delete Quantum Reasoning Job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is largely met structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: permanence of the erasure, tenant scoping, and the eligibility constraint that the target must be queued or terminal. It does not describe confirmation behavior or what happens when the job is ineligible.

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 tight sentences with the precondition front-loaded, so the warning is read before the action. 'Destructive' partially duplicates the destructiveHint annotation, though pairing it with tenant-scoped scope information keeps the sentence largely earned.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers preconditions, scope, and outcome (cancel vs permanent erase) adequately. It omits error behavior for ineligible jobs and any notion of return or confirmation, which there is no output schema to cover.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter job_id, so the schema contributes nothing. The description never explains the parameter's format or source, only implying indirectly that the referenced job must be queued or terminal. With low coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: cancel an eligible queued job or permanently erase content from a terminal job. That is far more specific than the title and tells the agent the two modes of this 'remove' tool. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from siblings like bee_quantum_reasoning_get or bee_quantum_reasoning_jobs, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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?

It gives an explicit gating condition ('Use only after explicit user intent') and implies when each mode applies (queued = cancel, terminal = delete). It stops short of naming alternatives such as inspecting job state first via bee_quantum_reasoning_get or listing jobs before removing one.

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