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. It does not disclose idempotency, what happens to already-completed/failed tasks, whether partial work or results are destroyed, permission requirements, or the response on success versus failure. The single word "running" is the only behavioral signal.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler and the verb and scope immediately visible. It is efficient, though its brevity is under-specification rather than deliberate compression.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter it never explains, the description is too thin. An agent learns what it does but not how to obtain task_id, what state the task must be in, or what the outcome of the call is.

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 0% and task_id has no schema description, yet the description never explains the parameter — notably not where task_id comes from (presumably delegate_code_task or get_task_status). The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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+resource ("Cancel a running delegated task") that an agent can distinguish from delegate_code_task and get_task_status by name alone. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not differentiated in-text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as get_task_status (to check a task first) or delegate_code_task. The word "running" implies only in-flight tasks are cancellable, but that is inference, not instruction.

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