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 behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about whether cancellation is graceful or immediate, whether it is reversible, what happens to partial work, whether ownership/permission is required, or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound. It is arguably too terse for a mutation operation, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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 destructive-ish mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to call it safely or interpret the result.

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% for the single parameter task_id, and the description adds no meaning: it doesn't say where the ID comes from (presumably the return of start_task), the expected format, or what happens with an unknown/already-finished ID.

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 (cancel) and resource (a running Antigravity task), which distinguishes it cleanly from start_task and task_status in the sibling set. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as the alternatives.

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 word "running" implies a state precondition (the task must still be in flight), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to the alternatives (task_status to check state, start_task to relaunch). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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