cancel_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: cancellation may not be immediate (verify stopped_confirmed) and edits are never rolled back (irreversible side effect). However, it says nothing about permissions, scope of what gets stopped, or partial-failure behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the verification and irreversibility caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully points at stopped_confirmed. But for a destructive mutation with zero annotations, the description should say more about authorization and what exactly the 'owned worker tree' covers.

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% and the single parameter task_id is never mentioned in the description, so neither source explains what task_id must reference (e.g., a submitted task handle). No meaning is added beyond the schema's type declaration.

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+resource: 'Stop the owned worker tree.' This clearly distinguishes cancel_task from siblings submit_task/get_task/wait_task/continue_task, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

'Check stopped_confirmed' gives post-call verification advice but there is no guidance on when to cancel versus wait_task or continue_task, nor any exclusions or prerequisites for selecting this tool.

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