dsh_cancel

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the turn scope explicitly preserves queued work, and queue removal is described as non-atomic and based on the latest mux queue snapshot. This is meaningful transparency about what gets destroyed.

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 compact, front-loads the primary scope behavior, and either sentence earn its place. No redundant text, no restating of the tool title or generic cancellation wording.

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 destructive 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does not explain return behavior, partial failure states, or the semantics of sinceCursor/expectedRevision. The scope behavior and non-atomic queue removal are helpful, but important invocation context is still missing.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description only explains the scope enum. taskId, sinceCursor, and expectedRevision are left completely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer the meaning of important parameters like optimistic concurrency guards or cursor-based synchronization.

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 concrete behavior for each scope: scope=turn cancels the active root turn and preserves queued work, while scope=queue removes queued items. It is clear about what the tool operates on, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name.

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 clear context for choosing a scope, including that it not’s queued work and that queue removal is non-atomic. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like dsh_continue or dsh_release_workspace, so it stops short of very explicit routing.

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