origin_bridge_cancel_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'cancel' or 'mark for cancellation' without detailing side effects, whether cancellation is immediate, or what happens to the task state. This lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and covers both queued and running scenarios. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or error states, but the current text suffices for basic understanding.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal value by linking task_id to origin_bridge_submit_task, but does not enhance understanding of host, port, token, or timeout beyond the schema.

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 tool cancels or marks for cancellation an Origin bridge task, using specific verbs 'Cancel' and 'mark'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like origin_bridge_submit_task and origin_bridge_task_status by focusing on cancellation.

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 distinguishes between queued and running tasks, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking status first via origin_bridge_task_status) or any exclusions.

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