Cancel a durable task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does provide meaningful detail: cancellation is cooperative and only takes effect at the next checkpoint, not immediately. It does not cover idempotency or what happens if the task is already finished, but the core behavioral nuance is well disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place. The essential action is stated first, and the critical checkpoint caveat follows immediately. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name beyond the initial statement.

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 one-parameter tool this is reasonably adequate, but it still leaves gaps: how the taskId should be obtained, whether cancellation is idempotent, and what the result or state after cancellation looks like. With no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 required parameter, taskId, with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare type and property 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 states a specific action (cooperatively cancel) and a specific resource (a running durable task). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like durable_task_get and durable_task_respond, so an agent can recognize its purpose without inspecting schemas.

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 when to use it: to cancel a running task that supports cooperative cancellation. The checkpoint caveat provides relevant usage context, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives such as getting task state first.

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