cancel_video_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: only queued tasks are affected, running ones are untouched. It says nothing about idempotency, behavior on an invalid or already-completed task_id, or permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the limiting constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter cancellation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and the critical limitation adequately. The only real omission is the meaning/source of task_id, which the schema also fails to document.

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% for the single task_id parameter, and the description adds no information about its format, where to obtain it (e.g., from list_video_tasks), or whether it accepts a full id or prefix. Low coverage should be compensated here, and it is not.

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 ('Cancel a queued video task') and immediately scopes it to queued tasks, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs versus siblings like generate_video or list_video_tasks. It stops short of explicitly naming an adjacent sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 second sentence gives a clear negative condition ('Running tasks can't be stopped'), which tells the agent when this tool will not apply. It does not name an alternative path for running tasks, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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