cancel_worker_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the key side effects: the worker stays alive, the cancelled file goes back to the queue, and a cause is recorded. This is solid transparency for a mutating operation.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by the important behavioral consequences.

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 three-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers what happens to the worker and the item. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though an explicit note on expected response behavior would be marginally useful.

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 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, including source hints for node_id and worker_id. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Cancel the item a worker is currently processing') and names the endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from kill-style tools by stating the worker stays alive and the file returns to the queue.

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 gives clear behavioral context: this cancels the current item without stopping the worker. It implicitly contrasts with kill_worker and requeue-style tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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