BearQ: Stop Task

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

The description says 'Cancels a running task,' which is a state-changing operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the tool's actual semantics and gives an agent conflicting safety signals.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Toolset' and 'Parameters' sections are mildly redundant with metadata already present in the schema, but they do not significantly bloat the definition.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, complete coverage should be easy, but the description omits side effects, reversibility, and behavior on already-finished tasks. More importantly, the readOnlyHint contradiction makes the overall context unreliable for an agent.

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 schema already documents taskId with type, bounds, required flag, and the same description as the tool description's parameter line. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Cancels') and a clear object ('a running task'), making the operation unmistakable. It also differentiates this tool from siblings like bearq_get_task, bearq_get_task_status, and bearq_wait_for_task, which are read/wait operations, and bearq_run_* tools, which start tasks.

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?

The description implies the tool is for running tasks, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, whether completed tasks can be cancelled, or whether a status check should precede cancellation. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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