chap.control.cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that cancellation is terminal and irreversible, and that settled tasks are rejected. It does not mention audit recording, permission requirements, or side effects, but the core state-transition behavior 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?

The description is two crisp sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the terminality constraint follows immediately. Every word contributes meaning.

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 control action with fully described parameters, the description provides the key domain constraint (terminality and settled-task refusal). There is no output schema, but the absence of return-value detail is a minor gap for an action like cancel. The description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the 'settled' constraint, which is also reflected in the task_id schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Cancel a task') and the resource it acts on, and immediately distinguishes cancellation from non-terminal states by noting 'Cancelled is terminal.' This differentiates it from siblings like pause, resume, and supersede.

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 a clear exclusion signal: a task that has already settled cannot be cancelled. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer cancellation over related alternatives such as supersede or rollback, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than fully stated.

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