jules_cancel_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'active' hints at a state precondition, but nothing is said about whether cancellation is irreversible, what happens to in-progress work, whether a reason is surfaced to anyone, or whether special permissions are needed for a destructive-looking operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter tool. Minor redundancy in 'Aborts and cancels,' which express essentially the same act.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key operational questions unanswered: state preconditions, irreversibility, and what the caller receives back. The fully documented schema covers inputs but not the behavior an agent needs to call this safely.

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% for both parameters (taskId and optional reason), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format, constraint, or example beyond it; 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 (cancel/abort) and resource (Jules autonomous coding task), so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling terminal-state tools such as jules_approve_plan or explain how cancellation relates to the other task-lifecycle operations.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no note about which task states are cancellable, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., sending feedback via jules_send_feedback instead of abandoning a task). The agent must infer all of this from the sibling names.

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