cancel_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'cancel', which implies a mutation, but does not state whether cancellation is irreversible, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the task is already completed or missing. For a destructive operation with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action and the required input directly, making it easy to scan and parse. Every word serves the core message.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose enough behavioral context for safe invocation. It states what the tool does and the required argument, but omits any caution about irreversibility, state requirements, or failure modes. This leaves the agent without essential operational context for a cancel operation.

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 schema defines one parameter, id, with 0% description coverage, so the schema itself provides no semantic detail. The description adds 'by ID', which tells the agent that the parameter identifies the task to cancel. However, it does not specify the ID format or source (e.g., task ID from get_tasks), so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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: 'Cancel a task'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like cancel_step and edit_task by making clear it operates on a task, not a step or task history. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond the resource noun, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_step or edit_task. The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool requires a task identifier but does not state prerequisites, expected state, or when cancellation is appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage with no explicit context or exclusions.

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