cancel_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context by noting that cancellation is 'best-effort' and that 'long-running operations may not stop immediately,' which helps set expectations. It also outlines the return format, though it doesn't discuss permissions or idempotency.

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 concise and well-structured, with the primary action stated first, followed by args, returns, and a note. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description includes a behavioral caveat. It could mention what happens if the task is already completed or if cancellation fails, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 provides only a title and type for task_id, with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explicitly defining task_id as 'The task ID to cancel,' which adds the necessary semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Cancel a pending or running background task.' This uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks and get_task_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 phrase 'pending or running' provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or define exclusion criteria. The usage is implied, not contrasted with similar tools like stop_execution.

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