cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical non-obvious trait: confirmed=true is only set on an observed terminal/exit, and the cancel request itself does not guarantee a stop. This is genuinely useful runtime semantics. It does not mention output format or whether the call blocks, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences. The first states the primary action; the second delivers a crucial caveat that prevents misinterpretation. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the most important semantic distinction is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential cancellation semantics well. However, it leaves gaps: it does not define the return shape or clarify whether the reported confirmation is immediate or requires polling. These omissions are notable because there is no output schema for the agent to lean on.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It never explains the task_id parameter beyond implying it identifies what to cancel. There is no mention of how to obtain the ID, what format it must take, or whether it must come from a run call. The agent can only infer the parameter's role from the tool name and general context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Request cancellation and report whether the stop was CONFIRMED by the native runtime." It precisely scopes the tool's behavior and distinguishes it from siblings like run, wait, and inspect. The added clarification that a cancel request alone is not a stop removes ambiguity about what the tool actually accomplishes.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as wait or inspect. It implies cancellation happens after a task is running, but it never says whether this should follow a run call, whether wait is needed to confirm the stop, or under what conditions cancellation is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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