cancel_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little: it doesn't say whether cancellation is reversible, whether a running task is killed gracefully or abruptly, whether the call is idempotent, or what permissions are needed. Only the applicable task states are 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?

One tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly due to under-specification rather than maximal information density.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a single sentence. Missing are reversibility, effect on a running task, and any indication of error behavior, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 single parameter (task_id) is fully covered by the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the identifier's format or source, which is the baseline-3 outcome for one documented parameter.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Cancel a ... task', with state scope ('queued or running') that hints at when it applies. It doesn't name or contrast any sibling (e.g. task_status), so it falls short of the 5 bar for explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

'Queued or running' implies the valid task states, giving implied usage. However, there is no guidance on when to cancel versus checking task_status first, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives.

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