cancel_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cancellation is 'logical' rather than physical and that an audit Event is produced, which are useful behavioral signals. However, it does not explain failure conditions, reversibility, permissions, or the role of expected_revision, leaving important behavior undisclosed.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and adds only essential qualifiers. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or 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 mutation tool with six parameters, zero parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description is too thin. Even though an output schema exists, the agent lacks guidance on parameter semantics, expected_revision's concurrency role, valid task states, and the audit event's consequences. The description covers basic purpose but not enough for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning for task_id, actor_id, role, expected_revision, plan_id, or reason. The phrase 'pending or owned in-progress' is contextual but not parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('task'), and adds meaningful scope: 'pending or owned in-progress'. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like edit_task, update_task, recover_task, or claim_task. The phrase 'with an audit Event' also signals a unique behavioral characteristic.

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 conveys clear usage context: it is for canceling tasks that are pending or owned/in-progress. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the state qualifiers give the agent a workable selection criterion among sibling task tools.

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