Cancel task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by spelling out the concrete effects: the hold is released, billing is limited to tracked time, and no completion webhook fires. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; each effect (hold release, billing, webhook suppression) earns its place. The ambiguous 'Customer never mind' opener costs a point because it reads as noise rather than usable instruction.

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?

With rich annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to add behavioral context, which it does for effects and preconditions. The unexplained 'Customer never mind' phrase is the one loose end that keeps it from fully closing the loop.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (reason, taskId, idempotencyKey) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that Idempotency-Key is required, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (cancel a task) and adds concrete business semantics: releases the hold, bills only tracked time, suppresses the completion webhook. The opening fragment 'Customer never mind' is an odd preamble but the remainder clearly distinguishes this from confirm_task/reopen_task, which move a task forward rather than ending it.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Ask the human first'), which is real when-to-use guidance for a destructive operation. It does not name alternatives such as confirm_task or reopen_task, so an agent must still infer the surrounding workflow, keeping it short of a 5.

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