Terminate a task and all its delegated subtasks, processing leaves first and returning one outcome per task. A lead can terminate only its own task.
Terminate a task and every task it delegated, leaves first, returning one outcome per task. A lead may cancel only its own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 the cascading destruction of all delegated descendants, the leaves-first ordering, the one-outcome-per-task return, and an authorization constraint (a lead may cancel only its own). It omits whether cancellation is irreversible and what happens to tasks already in flight.
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?
Two dense sentences with no filler; the cascading scope and ordering are front-loaded, and the ownership constraint closes it out. Every clause earns its place.
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 explains the return ('one outcome per task') and the ownership rule, which is the key behavioral fact for a destructive tool. What remains missing is reversibility and failure behavior for non-owned or already-completed tasks.
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 required parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter refers to a task ('a task and every task it delegated', 'leaves first'), but adds no id format, source, or lookup detail beyond that inference.
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 (terminate) and resource (a task and its entire delegated subtree), plus the cascade order and return shape. Nothing else in the sibling list (delegate, wait, check, result, list_tasks) does tree-wide cancellation, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the ownership rule ('A lead may cancel only its own') and the cascading scope tell the agent when cancellation is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like waive_review or check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.