cancel_recursive_agent_execution

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

No annotations are provided, so this description is the only behavioral disclosure. It adds a little context: cancellation is scoped to 'one exact user-owned recursive tree' and affects 'further work,' implying it won't stop past work and has an ownership requirement. However, it does not say whether currently running work is killed, whether cancellation is reversible, what side effects occur, or what happens to resources already created.

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?

One sentence is appropriately short, but the sentence is cryptic and sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, resembling a placeholder more than a functional tool description.

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?

The tool has no annotations and an opaque one-line description; even though an output schema exists, an agent still lacks when to use it, how to identify the execution, and what cancellation entails. With siblings such as get_recursive_agent_execution_status and recursive_agent_execute, the definition is not complete enough for reliable selection.

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 0% and the description never mentions execution_id, its format, how to obtain it, or how it identifies the tree. Even with a single parameter, the agent is left to infer that execution_id is the 'recursive tree' identifier from the tool name alone. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the metaphor 'Fence... from further work' instead of a standard verb like cancel/stop/halt, so it is not immediately clear what action is performed. It does identify a resource ('user-owned recursive tree') and a scope ('one exact'), but this mostly restates the tool name in more opaque terms. The purpose is vague and not actionable without relying on the name.

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?

No statement about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention get_recursive_agent_execution_status for checking status, or recursive_agent_execute and new_recursive_execution_id for starting executions. The only implication is that you would call it to halt an exact recursive tree, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are given.

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