agents_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral scoping detail (does not affect TUI sessions) but omits other important aspects such as irreversibility, side effects on related tasks, permission requirements, or behavior when the task is already finished. The coverage is minimal but adequate for a simple cancel 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose. There is no wasted wording, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations), the description covers the core action and a critical scoping exception. It could benefit from noting expected outcomes (e.g., whether cancellation is acknowledged) but is otherwise complete for its context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the task_id parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema's name and type. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a running agent task.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agents_list, agents_spawn, and agents_resume, which handle different operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool (to cancel a running agent task) and includes an explicit exclusion: 'This does not attach to or modify unrelated interactive TUI sessions.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or offer when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the TUI caveat.

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