App Update Cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The parenthetical '(写操作)' does disclose that this is a mutation, which is a small amount of genuine value, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to a partially applied update, or any side effects.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it does not lose points for verbosity.

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. But for a write operation with no annotations, no usage routing among four similar cancel siblings, and no side-effect disclosure, the definition is materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 task_id, host, port, scheme and profile are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the task_id format or the connection parameters, 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?

States a specific verb (取消/cancel) and resource (应用更新任务/app update task), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling cancel tools (app_task_cancel, app_install_cancel, app_download_cancel), leaving the agent to guess which cancel surface applies.

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, no prerequisites (e.g. an in-progress update task must exist), and no reference to the alternative cancel tools in the same family. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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