vibekit_cancel_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a no-op for already completed tasks, which is critical behavioral information. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it terminates processes) or return status.

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 purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple cancel tool with single parameter, the description is adequate but lacks context on return values (no output schema) and relationship to sibling tools like 'vibekit_get_task' or 'vibekit_wait_for_task'.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'taskId', and the description (via schema) already says 'The task ID to cancel'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Cancel'), the resource ('task'), and the required parameter ('by ID'). The phrase 'No-op for tasks that have already completed' distinguishes it from tools like 'vibekit_submit_task' and 'vibekit_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?

The description notes it is a no-op for completed tasks, implying it should be used only for running tasks. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vibekit_wait_for_task' or provide any 'when not to use' guidance.

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