cancel_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: invalidation of the fencing generation, which hints at side effects beyond simple cancellation. However, it does not explain failure conditions, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if the task is already completed. The specific invalidation detail adds some value, but coverage remains incomplete.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the verb, object, and effect immediately, making it efficient for an agent to scan.

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 is simple (one parameter, one action) and has an output schema, so return format is covered. However, it lacks usage guidance and more behavioral detail (e.g., edge cases, failure modes). For a simple cancel operation, these are moderate gaps, making it adequate but not complete.

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 compensate for parameter documentation. It does not explain what task_id means beyond the obvious (a task identifier), nor any format, constraints, or how it maps to the action. For a single required parameter, the agent can infer meaning, but the description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema field name.

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 explicitly states the action (cancel), the target (pending or running task), and the specific side effect (invalidate its current fencing generation). This is precise and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_task or retry_task, even without naming 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions like 'use this to stop a task,' nor any exclusions or trade-offs compared to retry_task or get_task. The context implies cancellation is the purpose, but it doesn't help an agent decide between cancel and retry.

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