computer_cancel

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

Annotations already show destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the in-flight operation may complete, no further actions will be scheduled, and the caller should poll for the terminal result. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action first and no filler. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, how it behaves, and what to do next.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational details: partial completion, no new scheduling, and polling for the final result. It could be more complete with explicit behavior for already-finished tasks, but nothing critical is missing.

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% and the description never mentions taskId or explains how it relates to the 'current input operation'. The parameter name and required status make the intent somewhat inferable, but the description does not add explicit parameter meaning.

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?

Description opens with 'Request cancellation' and clarifies scope as 'current input operation', so an agent can tell this aborts an ongoing task rather than listing or creating one. It differs semantically from siblings like computer_close or computer_continue, though it doesn't name them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance appears. The instruction to 'Poll status for the terminal result' is useful follow-up, but an agent is left to infer that cancel is appropriate when a running operation should be aborted.

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