Cancel a running consultation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('kill the consultant process and everything it spawned') and the group behavior, which is significant and goes beyond what would be assumed. However, it does not address reversibility, side effects on data, or permission requirements, but for a cancel operation, the key behaviors are adequately covered.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the primary action front-loaded. It includes the essential parameter guidance without extraneous detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the parameter semantics, and the key behavioral trait (killing spawned processes). It does not address edge cases like providing both parameters or neither, but these are not critical for typical usage and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the semantic difference between job_id (single job) and group_id (fan-out group), which is critical for correct usage. It does not specify that both are optional or what happens if neither is provided, but the core distinction is well conveyed.

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 clear, specific action: stop a running consultation and kill the consultant process. It explicitly mentions the spawned processes, making it distinct from the sibling tools (consult_get, consult_start, consult_record, consult_export, consult_list), which all serve different purposes.

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 provides guidance on parameter usage ('Pass group_id instead of job_id to stop every consultant in a fan-out'), but it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions for selection, so the when-to-use context is only implicit.

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