BearQ: Stop Task

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

The description discloses genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: the return shape { taskId, stopped: true } and the no-op semantics for already-finished tasks, which spare the agent a false assumption. However, it also describes a state-changing cancellation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (and destructiveHint=false), a direct conflict that can mislead an agent about whether the call mutates anything.

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 short sentences: action and return shape first, the important non-guarantee second, toolset/param metadata last. Nothing is redundant and the caveat is front-loaded before any caller would act on the result.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return contract and the key edge case, and the single parameter is fully covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether cancellation is immediate or asynchronous and whether any permission is required.

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 100% and the sole parameter is already documented in the schema; the description's parameter line ('BearQ task ID to cancel') restates it almost verbatim. With one required numeric param, no additional semantics are needed, so this is baseline-adequate with no added value.

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 names a specific verb and resource with scope: it "Cancels a pending or running task." The resource (task) is distinguishable from the nearby bearq_stop_workflow_run and bearq_get_task_status siblings, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a conditional follow-up ('check the task's status separately if that matters'), which implicitly points at bearq_get_task_status, but it never names that alternative or says when to prefer waiting or checking status over stopping. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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