uof_custom_terminate_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: terminates the entire task (skipping subsequent steps), blocks if already terminated, and clarifies that the reason field is not written to the sign-off history. This is comprehensive.

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?

Concise and well-structured using bullet points for usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite no annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, parameter nuances, and behavioral impacts. It is fully self-contained for an agent to understand 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: reason is not stored in opinion fields, result enum is explained with usage scenarios, and task_id is simply the task work ID. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 tool terminates a task with specific actions (Cancel, Adopt, Reject). It distinguishes from sibling tools like uof_custom_sign_next which handles sequential signing, not termination.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use each result: Cancel for applicant withdrawal, Adopt/Reject for supervisor approval/rejection, and Admin for stuck tasks. Also notes the operator is fixed to the server's identity, preventing misuse.

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