cancel_async_task

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

The description directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true. Cancelling a task is a mutating action, not read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action, and it does not explain side effects like whether cancellation is irreversible or what happens to the task's status. This is a serious inconsistency with the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it omits critical usage context and contradicts the annotations. It fails to provide guidance on when to cancel tasks or what the expected outcome is, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 description provides no information about the task_id parameter beyond its name. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain how to obtain a task_id or what format is expected. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds zero semantic value.

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 states the tool's function: cancel a pending or running background task. It uses a specific verb ('cancel') and a specific resource ('background task'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_async_task, get_async_task, and list_async_tasks by being the cancellation action.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking task status first (e.g., via get_async_task), nor does it state that tasks should be cancelled only when they are no longer needed. There is no discussion of prerequisites or exclusions.

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