cancel_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses exactly which tasks are mutated (queued/scheduled), which are left untouched (running/completed/failed/cancelled), and the return shape (count cancelled). It omits auth requirements and whether cancellation is reversible, which are meaningful gaps for a destructive bulk operation.

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, front-loaded with the destructive scope, followed by exclusions and return value. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value (number cancelled) and fully characterizes the effect and boundaries of the operation for a single-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already documents the valid status values, so the description's 'Optionally filter by status' adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (bulk-cancel), an explicit resource (every task in the queue), and a precise scope (only still-cancellable statuses). This clearly separates it from the single-task sibling cancel_task.

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 'Bulk' plus 'every task in the queue' makes the bulk-vs-single context clear relative to cancel_task, and the eligible/untouched status lists frame when it applies. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating when not to use it.

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