cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating result states and clarifying that not-running means the turn ended while the session can still be resumed — non-obvious outcome semantics, especially valuable since no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: the action front-loaded, then the terse outcome enumeration. 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 two-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, target, and all four possible result states. The only gap is any note on preconditions (e.g., what happens if the session is not found) beyond the status word itself.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the force grace-period behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes sessionId ('by sessionId') and adds nothing about the force 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?

States a specific verb (cancel), resource (an in-flight Cursor turn), and the keying parameter (sessionId). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings delegate and doctor, though it never explicitly contrasts itself 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?

The phrase 'in-flight Cursor turn' implies the precondition for use, and the status list hints at outcomes, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives.

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