rx_abort_task

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the cascade effect (all unfinished assignments get closed), irreversibility, and the authorization constraint (author-only, refusal otherwise). These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know before calling, not restatements of structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cascade effect, then irreversibility, then the auth constraint, then the prerequisite workflow. Every sentence carries an operational fact with no filler.

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 destructive one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: effect scope, reversibility, auth constraint, and precondition checks. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 a single parameter, so the schema already documents both the id meaning and the author requirement. The description reinforces the author constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb (abort/terminate) and resource (task), and clarifies the scope by stating that all unfinished assignments under the task are closed. An agent can distinguish it from rx_complete_assignment or rx_delete_tickets without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the condition under which it works (user must be the task author, else RX refuses), the prerequisite check via the named sibling rx_get_task, and the requirement to confirm with the user. This covers when to use it, when it will fail, and the recommended workflow.

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