cs_agent_cancel

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

Despite the destructiveHint annotation already flagging destructiveness, the description adds meaningful context by specifying that 'unfinished descendant turns' are also canceled and warns to 'inspect status first,' going beyond the annotation's simple flag.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds a necessary caution. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With a simple schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope (including descendant turns), and a cautionary note. It could mention return behavior or error cases, but these are not strictly required.

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 100%: turnId and reason are already clearly described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning or examples, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Cancel' and identifies the resource as 'queued or active work, including unfinished descendant turns,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cs_agent_destroy or cs_agent_send.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: for 'obsolete, unsafe, or no-longer-needed' work, and advises to 'inspect status first when the outcome is uncertain.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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