cancel_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the call is tolerant of already-finished tasks, returning 'the final state it had already reached' rather than failing. It omits permission requirements, effects on the delegatee, and whether cancellation is reversible.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the outcome semantics second.

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 mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, and the tricky already-completed case. Only parameter meaning and permission prerequisites are left implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single task_id parameter. It only implies the constraint that the task must be one you delegated; it adds nothing about identifier form or what an out-of-scope id does.

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 and resource ('Stop a task') plus a scope qualifier ('you delegated') that separates it from accept_task, delegate, and update_task. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

'You delegated' implies the prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as update_task or delete_session, and no when-not guidance (e.g. tasks not delegated by you).

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