cancel_dispatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the internal mechanism (sets cancel flag, stops before next fallback attempt, terminates the subprocess) and the resulting status ('cancelled'). This goes beyond a bare 'cancels a dispatch' and gives the agent real expectations, though it does not describe the return payload or failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the purpose and edge case come first, followed by mechanism details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 one-parameter cancel operation with an output schema present (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose, the idempotent edge case, the cancellation mechanism, and the resulting status. The only gap is explicit parameter documentation, which is minor for such a self-evident parameter.

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 compensate. It does not explicitly define dispatch_id, but the name is self-evident given the tool purpose and it is referenced implicitly throughout. The description does not add format, source, or validation hints beyond what the schema shows, which is an acceptable but not strong level of compensation for a single obvious parameter.

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 ('Abort a running background dispatch') and adds the edge-case behavior 'No-op if already finished'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dispatch (which starts), check_dispatch (which checks status), and dispatch_history (which lists history) without needing to open 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 purpose statement implies when to use it (when you need to stop a running dispatch), and the 'no-op if already finished' gives some boundary context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g., 'use check_dispatch first to see if it is still running'), leaving routing partially to inference.

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