cancel_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the action but does not reveal whether cancellation is irreversible, what happens to in-progress work, what status change results, or whether cancellation is synchronous. For a destructive mutation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the size is appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 description is minimally sufficient: it tells the agent what to pass (task_id) and what the effect is (cancel running task). However, it omits return behavior, error conditions, and side effects, and there is no output schema to compensate, leaving some ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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 100%, with task_id already described as 'Task ID to cancel.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Cancels') with a clear resource ('coding-agent task') and adds the qualifier 'running' to limit scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_task, continue_task, and get_task.

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 word 'running' implies it should be used for tasks that are currently active, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. It does not mention behaviors for completed tasks or point to any sibling tool as a better fit in other cases.

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