openclaw_task_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that cancellation only applies to pending tasks, but misses important behavioral traits such as what happens if the task has started, any confirmation or side effects, or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, more transparency is needed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or unclear phrasing.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or what the user should expect after cancellation. A more complete description would include success indicators or potential failures.

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 100%, and the parameter task_id has a basic description. The overall description adds the constraint that the task must be pending, but this is already implied. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 cancels a pending task, with a specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'pending task'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_task_list and openclaw_task_status by focusing on cancellation and the pending state constraint.

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 explicitly states the tool only works for tasks that haven't started yet, providing a clear usage condition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the condition alone gives sufficient guidance.

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