arvan_task_cancel

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are ambiguous for a cancellation action. The description does not clarify what cancelling entails (e.g., whether the task can be resumed, if cleanup occurs, or permission requirements). Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the action itself.

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 concise at one sentence but omits critical details. While brevity is valued, the description could include parameter guidance or cancellation behavior without becoming verbose.

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 cancellation action with one parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to find the task_id (e.g., from a list tool), what cancellation impacts, or any side effects. The agent needs more context to invoke the tool 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?

The sole parameter 'task_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. The agent lacks semantic guidance to correctly provide the parameter.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Cancel') and the target resource ('a scheduled/running background task'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like arvan_task_list and arvan_task_status, which are for listing and checking status, not cancelling.

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 implies usage for cancelling tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide conditions for when not to use it. No guidelines on prerequisites or post-cancellation behavior.

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