cancel_activity

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Cancel' but does not disclose whether the action is safe, reversible, or requires specific permissions. Critical behavioral traits like side effects or required auth are missing.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy, but it is overly terse. It could include parameter details or usage notes without losing conciseness. It earns its place but is under-specified.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify return behavior, error conditions, or what happens after cancellation. For a tool with three parameters, this is inadequate.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters, but it does not mention any of the three parameters (activity_id, env_id, agent_token). The tool name implies activity_id is needed, but no semantic detail is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'running background activity', making the action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'clear_activity_history' or 'stop_container', missing a chance to clarify scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'clear_activity_history' or other cancellation tools. The description implies usage when an activity is running but provides no context for appropriate conditions or prerequisites.

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