Cancel a task

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

Only destructiveHint=false is annotated, so the description carries most of the burden and adds real value: it discloses that child processes started by SousChef are killed and that 'Nothing is applied', i.e. cancelling produces no side effects on the target. It stops short of saying whether cancellation is reversible or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the side-effect clarification are 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?

For a simple one-param mutation there is no output schema, and the description doesn't say what the caller receives back or the outcome for an already-completed task. Adequate for a minimal cancel tool, but a couple of gaps remain.

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% for the single required taskId, and the description never mentions the parameter at all — no format, no hint about where to obtain the ID (e.g. from delegate_task/get_task_status). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('cancel_task' → 'Stops a queued or running task') and adds scope: it also terminates spawned processes. No sibling (wait_for_task, get_task_result, get_task_status, delegate_task) overlaps, so it is distinguishable, but the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

'queued or running task' implies the valid precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus polling with get_task_status or waiting with wait_for_task, and no guidance on what happens if the task is already finished.

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