cursor_agent_cancel

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

The description discloses the tool's destructive nature (Kill) but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. Without annotations, the description carries full burden; it could be more transparent about what happens to the job's resources.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action (Kill) and the target. Every word is necessary, 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?

For a simple kill operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides minimal but potentially sufficient context. However, it does not mention the return value or confirmation of success, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 one parameter (job_id) with no description, and the description does not explain what job_id represents or how to obtain it. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 action (Kill) and the resource (a running job started with cursor_agent_start). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly linking to cursor_agent_start, making its role as a cancellation tool unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for killing jobs initiated by cursor_agent_start, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., cursor_agent_check for status), leaving some ambiguity.

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