tandem_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that cancellation does not undo edits and works during clarification waits, but it does not disclose whether cancellation is reversible, whether completed tasks can be cancelled, or any other state-change side effects.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the core action, and each sentence adds value. The second sentence prevents a likely misinterpretation about undoing edits.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, a special case, and a key non-effect. It falls slightly short only by not addressing cancellation permanence or behavior on already-completed tasks.

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 a single task_id parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain its format, origin, or usage. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no explicit parameter-level meaning despite low 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Stop a task') and adds a meaningful nuance about stopping while waiting for clarification. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start, continue, wait, and result.

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 when to use the tool: to stop any task, including one waiting for clarification. It also notes a relevant limitation ('Does not undo edits'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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