App Task Action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a write operation (写操作) and an aggregate entry, which is the most important behavioral fact for a cancel tool. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or whether cancelling a completed task errors out.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the action mapping. No filler, though the wrapping/formatting of the subcommand list is slightly awkward.

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 described, and the write-operation nature is stated. Still, the relationship to the four discrete cancel siblings is left to inference, which matters for a router-style tool with a four-value enum.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents host/port/scheme/profile/task_id. The description adds value by mapping the action enum values to concrete CLI subcommands (e.g. download-cancel → app download cancel), but offers no further semantics for task_id or the connection parameters. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (cancel app tasks by type) and identifies itself as the aggregated entry point (聚合入口) whose action field maps to the individual CLI subcommands. This distinguishes it from siblings, though it does not name app_task_cancel/app_install_cancel/etc. explicitly.

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 the aggregate routing model by listing the CLI subcommands that action maps to, so an agent can infer usage. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the discrete sibling tools app_task_cancel, app_install_cancel, app_update_cancel, and app_download_cancel, leaving the choice implicit.

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