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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the state machine (queued → cancelled, running → aborted) and declares terminal-state calls idempotent, which is the key safety fact for a mutation. It stops short of saying whether cancellation waits for the abort to complete, what the response confirms, or what error surfaces if the task does not exist.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the per-state outcomes, with a short auth requirement trailing. Every clause conveys something the caller needs; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what the operation does, how it behaves per state, idempotency, and the auth requirement. The only gap is the absence of any statement about what a successful call returns or confirms.

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%, including the note that access_token is a registered-user JWT, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's auth note repeats the schema rather than adding format, scope, or acquisition guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Cancel a task') plus the exact outcome per source state (queued → cancelled; running → aborted). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like actora_gateway_create_task and actora_gateway_get_task without opening any 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?

The state-transition clause effectively tells the agent when calling is safe: terminal states are idempotent, so repeat calls are harmless, while queued/running produce distinct outcomes. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but for a terminal cancel operation none is really needed.

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