Cancel task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite (parent's version and lease token) and the condition (children terminal), but does not explain what cancellation actually does (state change, reversibility, side effects) or mention permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior. It adds some value but leaves many behavioral aspects obscure.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the precondition and the unique parameter requirement.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only a single line of conditions. It omits essential context such as the meaning of expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, actorId, and reason, and does not explain the effect of cancellation on the task hierarchy. It is far from complete for a complex lifecycle operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at two parameters (expectedParentVersion and parentLeaseToken) via 'direct parent's version and lease token', but it does not explain the other five required parameters (taskId, actorId, expectedVersion, reason, idempotencyKey) or their roles. This is insufficient given the high parameter count and lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Cancel') on a specific resource ('non-terminal task') with a clear precondition ('after its direct children are terminal'). It also mentions the unique requirement for parent's version and lease token, distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_fail or task_supersede.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: only after direct children are terminal. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases (e.g., tasks with non-terminal children) or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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