stop_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return value (confirmation of cancellation), the ownership scoping rule (only the calling agent's task), and the failure mode and error code (cross-agent calls reject with TAB_NOT_OWNED). What is missing is what happens to partial/in-flight work and whether cancellation is idempotent if no task is running.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then return value, then usage triggers, then related tools, then the scoping caveat. Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information with 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 zero-parameter control tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is cancelled, that confirmation is returned, when to use it, the alternative to check first, and the authorization boundary. No critical gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema fully covers the input contract and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description correctly adds no invented parameter language, though it also has no opportunity to add value here.

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 the currently running automation task") with an explicit scope qualifier ("currently running"). This cleanly separates it from the sibling run_task (which starts a task) and get_task_status (which inspects one) without needing the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit "When to use" trigger list (run_task taking too long, wrong direction, need manual control) and names the related alternatives with their roles: get_task_status should be checked first, run_task is the target being cancelled. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the right choice.

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