queue_cancel_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the tenant restriction and the statuses it applies to (queued/reserved/active), which is useful. But it does not state whether cancellation is reversible, what happens if an active task is cancelled mid-scan, or what the response indicates — gaps that matter for a mutation tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 sentences with zero filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and the two critical constraints (source of ids, tenant scope) are packed in without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it cancels, how to get the id, and the tenant restriction. Minor gaps remain around success/failure signaling and post-cancel behavior, but these are modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and the schema only shows task_id as a plain string. The description compensates by explaining task_id is a Celery task id and explicitly tells the agent where to obtain valid values (queue_status's active_tasks/reserved_tasks), adding real meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (cancel), resource (scan task), and scope (single task by Celery task id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like queue_purge by specifying it operates on one task at a time, and it disambiguates from queue_status by pointing to it as the source of ids rather than the action itself.

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?

It routes the agent to queue_status to obtain valid task ids and states the tenant-scoping restriction ('Only cancels tasks belonging to this key's tenant'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with queue_purge or other cancellation siblings, leaving the when-not-to-use decision partially to inference.

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