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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete effects (frees the account job slot, stops replyUrl callbacks), the non-effects (task keeps running and is still charged, kling_get_task still reads it), and the underlying endpoint. This is exactly the extra context the destructive/idempotent hints cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effects, then the critical exclusion, then the endpoint. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With no output schema and a one-parameter tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, what it does not do, that the task remains billable and readable, and the route it hits. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the single task_id parameter is already documented as a digits-only Kling task id. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the URL template, 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?

States a specific verb (stop tracking) and resource (a running task), and immediately contrasts it with the sibling operation it is not: 'It does NOT cancel the task at Kling'. The endpoint DELETE /scheduler/{task_id} pins it down further, letting an agent separate it from kling_delete_task and kling_get_task.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when a task is stuck') and implicitly routes away from cancellation via the 'does NOT cancel' clause, but never names kling_delete_task as the tool to use when the agent actually wants to cancel. Context is clear without an explicit alternative.

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