Marks a background job abandoned to discard its result without stopping work already posted to SONAR, preventing the adapter from reporting that result.
Mark a background job abandoned so its result is discarded. This does NOT stop the work: a menu command already posted to SONAR cannot be recalled. It only stops this adapter from reporting the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly says the work is not stopped, that a posted SONAR menu command cannot be recalled, and that only result reporting is suppressed. It does not cover idempotency, error behavior, or what happens if the job has already finished, but the critical non-obvious side effect is disclosed.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the most important caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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?
The critical behavioral caveat is present and there is no output schema to explain. Still, for a job-manipulation tool, the description omits how to identify the job via id and what a successful or failed call returns. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent invoking it correctly the first time.
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?
There is one parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description refers only to 'a background job' and never explains what the id represents, where to obtain it, or its expected format. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but 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: 'Mark a background job abandoned so its result is discarded.' This is far more precise than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling cw_job_clear, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
Usage is implied by the warning that the work is not stopped and the result is simply not reported. That helps an agent understand when the tool is appropriate. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to cw_job_clear or cw_jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.