cancel_queued_job

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool removes pending jobs and does not affect running ones, which is transparent about its scope. However, it lacks details such as whether the action is destructive, requires permissions, or produces any feedback (e.g., success/failure).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the primary action and key constraint. No wasted words.

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 is complete. It adequately covers what the tool does and its limitations (only pending jobs), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'prompt_id'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, simply restating the parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Remove', the resource 'a specific pending job', and specifies the identifier 'by prompt_id'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not affect running jobs, which differentiates it from 'cancel_job' and '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 explicitly says it only affects pending jobs, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for running jobs) or mention alternative tools like 'cancel_job' for running jobs. Still, the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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