process.cancel

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds 'best-effort' (indicating the operation may not succeed) and clarifies scope ('its Linux process group'). This gives the agent useful behavioral context. It doesn't describe failure modes or return behavior, but the core destructive trait and nuance are covered.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no wasted words. The key qualifier 'Best-effort' is front-loaded, and the scope is stated clearly. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and minimal description, the agent does not know what the tool returns on success or failure. There is no mention of idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the process is already terminated. For a destructive operation, this leaves important gaps. The description is too brief to be fully self-contained.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not explicitly map task_id and process_id to their roles, though the names are somewhat self-explanatory. The description only says 'cancel a running Task process', implying task_id identifies the task and process_id the process, but this is not made explicit. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('cancel'), a resource ('a running Task process and its Linux process group'), and a qualifier ('Best-effort'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like task.cancel (which cancels a whole task) and process.start/status/output. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to cancel a running process within a task. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from task.cancel or other process-related tools. No alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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