App Download Cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does flag that this is a write operation ('写操作'), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about whether cancellation is reversible, what happens if the task is already complete or missing, whether it needs elevated permissions, or what side effects occur on the NAS. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why guidance is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter surface is fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the disambiguation from sibling cancel tools and any behavioral caveats for a write operation, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 every parameter (including host/port/scheme/profile connection details and task_id) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint information about task_id beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('取消应用商店下载任务' – cancel an app-store download task), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the numerous other cancel tools in the sibling list (app_task_cancel, app_install_cancel, app_update_cancel, download_action), which is the main purpose-clarity gap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the closely related cancel siblings (app_task_cancel, app_install_cancel, app_update_cancel) or any prerequisite such as needing a valid task_id from a prior download task. Usage can only be inferred from the name and the fact that it is a write operation.

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