stop_task

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context: the tool is asynchronous ('reports cancelling until WorkBuddy confirms cancellation') and force=true is scoped to the listener-owned worker after a grace period, explicitly never the desktop application. This bounded-destruction language is consistent with destructiveHint=false rather than contradicting it. It does not cover failure modes, such as cancelling a nonexistent or already-completed task.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the async behavior and the force-safety boundary. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what happens on call, the asynchronous confirmation state, and the exact blast radius of force. Only edge cases (invalid task_id, already-finished tasks) are left out.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does so well for the non-obvious parameter, explaining that force=true may terminate only the listener-owned worker after a grace period; task_id is self-explanatory from its name and required status. The 'grace period' duration and worker scope details remain unspecified.

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: 'Request native task cancellation' for a given task. The purpose is unambiguous and no sibling (send_message, get_status, wait_for_message, etc.) overlaps with task cancellation, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it wants to cancel a running task. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no guidance on when cancellation is inappropriate, and no mention of preconditions such as the task being active or owned by the caller.

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