Cancel Companion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is conditional ('if any') and scoped to a cwd, but it does not describe side effects, whether it is asynchronous, what happens to the turn after cancellation, or error/return behavior. This is a minimum viable disclosure with clear gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word contributes meaning: 'currently running' and 'if any' are valuable qualifiers. There is no waste.

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 with one optional string parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the core action. However, it lacks context about what happens after cancellation, how the cwd parameter is used, and any relation to sibling tools. It is adequate but leaves important operational details implicit.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, and the description only mentions 'cwd' without explaining its meaning, format, or optionality. Since required parameters are 0, it is ambiguous whether omitting cwd applies globally or would fail. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the action (cancel) and the target resource (currently running companion turn for a cwd). The phrase 'if any' adds a conditional that clarifies behavior. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like companion_send, companion_wait, and companion_reset.

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 when to use it (when a companion turn is running for a cwd) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance around prerequisites or differences from sibling tools like companion_reset or companion_wait.

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