Cancel a delegated task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that cancelling releases held paths, which is a useful side effect. However, it does not state whether the task must exist, whether cancellation is idempotent, or what happens to associated resources.

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 sentence of 12 words that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and moderate complexity (cancellation semantics), the description is too sparse. It lacks necessary details about task state assumptions, error cases, and the effect on the task's lifecycle.

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 the parameter 'task_id', and the description does not provide any additional meaning about it (e.g., format, expected values, or how to obtain it). The description adds no value beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 states the action ('Stop a running delegated Antigravity task') and the side effect ('release any paths it held'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ag_delegate (start) and ag_task_status (status check).

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 the tool is for cancelling a running task, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., if the task is already finished, you might use ag_task_status instead). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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