Cancel a specified print job in the self-service cloud print queue; by default it only checks that the job exists and returns a precheck, while confirm=true performs the deletion.
从自助文印云打印队列中删除指定作业（写操作）：缺省只校验作业存在性并输出预检结果；confirm=true 才真正删除。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | 打印作业 ID（dwJobId）。 | |
| confirm | No | true 时真正删除作业；缺省只预检。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the call is destructive only when confirm=true, otherwise it is a safe existence check. It omits permissions required, whether a deleted job can be recovered, and what happens to a job that is already printing, which keeps it below a 5.
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 sentence with a colon-delimited structure that front-loads the action and the write-operation warning, then gives the mode switch. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, default dry-run behavior, and the confirm gate. Only the shape of the precheck result and failure modes remain unspecified, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.
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 100%, so job_id and confirm are already documented in the input schema, and the description's statements about them largely restate those definitions. It adds the two-phase framing (precheck vs. real delete) but no new detail such as ID format, defaults on the wire, or error semantics for a missing job.
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 names a specific verb and resource in Chinese: deleting a specified job from the self-service cloud print queue, and explicitly labels it a write operation. That clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings pms_jobs and pms_stations and from pms_print, so an agent can choose without opening the schema.
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 states the operating mode clearly: the default call only verifies job existence and returns a precheck result, and only confirm=true actually deletes. That is a concrete guide for how to sequence a call, but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit case where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.