Cancel task

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 mentions that the task must not have executed, which is useful, but it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible, if confirmation is needed, or what happens to associated resources). For a mutation action, more transparency is expected.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information: what it does and the condition. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic operation and condition. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details that would make it fully self-contained for an agent. For a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but could be improved.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for taskId ('the task id'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no additional parameter context is provided.

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 clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'a task that has not yet executed', which specifies both the action and a condition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_get, tasks_list, and task_wait, which have different purposes. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., only for pending tasks).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_delete or task_wait. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must not have started) or when cancellation is inappropriate. The description only states the action, leaving the agent 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.