desktop_cancel

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does this well by explicitly naming three behaviors: stopping the worker, releasing held input, and resetting persistent variables. It does not cover error cases or reversibility, but the main mutating impact is transparent.

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 the primary action front-loaded and every clause adding real information: stopping the worker, releasing input, and resetting variables. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential contract: what is stopped, what is released, and what state is reset. It could be more complete by mentioning behavior when no worker is running or what success/error output looks like, but the core calling context is adequately covered.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately adds no parameter-related noise, earning the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop'), a clear target ('the running desktop worker'), and lists the concrete side effects ('release its held input', 'reset persistent variables'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like desktop_status, desktop_observe, and desktop_exec.

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 phrase 'Stop the running desktop worker' implies the tool should be used when a worker is currently running and needs to be halted. However, it does not explicitly compare against desktop_reset or state when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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