Stop OMP Task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the cancellation is immediate, the 'detached runner owns the OMP child PID' and terminates the process tree safely. No contradiction with annotations. It could mention whether a cancelled job can be restarted, but otherwise rich.

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 crisp sentences with no wasted words. The key action verb is first, followed by the mechanism, then the usage imperative. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical usage guidance is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools. The description clearly handles the core purpose and usage constraints. It lacks a note on the output schema (e.g., whether it returns success/failure), but with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It could mention what happens if the job_id doesn't exist or is already cancelled, but overall sufficiently complete.

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. It does not provide detailed parameter semantics but it adds that the operation is per 'one exact' job (implying the job_id parameter uniquely identifies it). The reason parameter is not described, but given the tool's focused purpose and the default value in the schema, the agent can infer it. A brief mention of reason's purpose would push to 5.

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 a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('delegated OMP job'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like omp_cancel_group. It states exactly what the tool does (request immediate cancellation of one exact job) and how it works (the runner terminates the process tree safely).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this immediately when the user asks to stop') and what not to do ('do not inspect PIDs or manually kill processes first'). This effectively differentiates from alternative approaches and sets clear guardrails for the agent.

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