dsh_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: exactly what is torn down (turn, sub-agents, background jobs) and an important boundary — queued messages are NOT removed. It omits error/idempotency behavior, permissions, and what happens if nothing is running, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core action and its scope come first, and the queue caveat follows. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 two-param, no-output-schema cancel tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential questions: what stops, what survives, and how to target the session. Return/error semantics and whether the call is idempotent are unstated, which is the remaining gap.

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 the schema already documents both parameters; baseline is 3. The description only adds that the two keys are alternatives ('by run_id or session_id'), a small increment beyond the schema's field 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?

Specific verb ('Stop everything a session is doing') plus explicit scope enumeration (running turn, sub-agents, background jobs) makes the operation unambiguous. It does not name any sibling tool, but no sibling in the list performs cancellation, so confusion risk is low.

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 implies when to use it by naming the two lookup keys ('by run_id or session_id'), and the session_id note hints at the case where dsh-baton did not start the work. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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