cancel_task

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is somewhat contradictory for a cancellation tool—cancelling a running task is typically a state-changing action. The description says 'Request cancellation' which implies it only requests, not guarantees, cancellation, aligning with readOnlyHint in a narrow sense. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the delegation after cancellation, whether it's reversible, or any side effects. The description adds the 'queued or running' scope but not much else.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Request cancellation') and specifies the target ('queued or running in-memory delegation'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it doesn't explain what happens after cancellation (e.g., whether the task is removed from the queue, whether a result is returned, or how to check status afterward). Given the sibling tools include get_task_status and get_task_result, an agent might need to know what to expect after calling cancel_task. The description is adequate but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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. The description mentions 'queued or running in-memory delegation' but does not explain the job_id parameter beyond what the schema provides (string, min/max length). The description adds no detail about what job_id refers to or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is minimal and the description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and a specific resource ('queued or running in-memory delegation'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delegate_task and get_task_status by focusing on cancellation, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when a queued or running delegation needs to be cancelled. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of 'queued or running' gives some guidance. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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