abort_task

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., partial execution, signal delivery, idempotency), safety, or authorization requirements, leaving the agent blind to consequences.

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?

At one sentence, the description is extremely concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not bloated, but it under-delivers on content that would fit in a short paragraph.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should still explain return values, errors, and behavior after abort. It fails to provide enough context for reliable use.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no detail about the 'task_id' parameter (e.g., format, source, validation). The agent must rely solely on the parameter name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Abort a running task' uses a clear verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'abort' entails (e.g., cancellation, rollback), and could be more distinct from sibling tools like 'revoke_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use 'abort_task' versus sibling tools such as 'revoke_task', 'cancel_queue_consumer', or 'shutdown_worker'. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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