cancel_task

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses the status mutation to 'cancelled', the timestamp side effect, the automatic logging to the parent project note (a non-obvious side effect an agent must know), and that the reason is appended to the task body. It stops short of discussing reversibility or idempotency (e.g., cancelling an already-cancelled task), but the core behavioral profile is clearly disclosed.

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 tightly organized: a one-line purpose opener, a two-sentence behavior paragraph, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place — the example ID, the automatic-logging side effect, and the reason behavior are all high-value. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 low-complexity tool (2 params, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers all invocation essentials: what happens, side effects, and full parameter semantics. The only substantive gap is the absence of sibling-selection guidance and edge-case behavior (nonexistent task IDs), which matters more given the large sibling list but does not prevent correct invocation.

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%, so the description must fully compensate — and it does. task_id gains a format example ('MDV-001') plus an alternative form (path relative to vault root); reason gains behavioral meaning ('appended to task body'). Both parameters are meaningfully documented beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a task') and then specifies the exact state change: 'Sets status to cancelled with a timestamp.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like complete_task (completed status) and update_task_status (generic status mutation); an agent can tell the tools apart without opening schemas.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose cancel_task over its closely-related siblings complete_task and update_task_status, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., when a task should be completed instead). With 48 sibling tools including multiple status-mutating ones, this selection decision is left entirely to the agent's inference, and the description gives nothing to resolve it.

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