Cancel a delegated task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one key behavioral trait: that cancellation terminates 'everything it started,' indicating cascading termination. However, it omits details like whether the operation is destructive (assumed but not stated), whether it requires any permissions, or what the return behavior is (e.g., blocking, asynchronous).

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 sentence of 9 words, with the core verb 'Terminate' front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the key behavioral nuance of cascade cancellation.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what it terminates and the scope, but does not cover important usage context such as error cases (e.g., cancelling a non-existent session), whether it is safe for any session, or what the result looks like. Some additional detail would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'job_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'terminate a running delegated Ollama session and everything it started,' which specifies the action (terminate), the resource (delegated Ollama session), and an important scope ('everything it started'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_start and delegate_status.

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 implicitly indicates use for canceling a running session but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., delegate_status to check status first) or when not to use (e.g., if the session is already completed). It lacks any before/after context or exclusion conditions.

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