tdarr_cancel_worker_item

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. However, it only says 'Cancel a running worker item' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the item is removed from the queue, if the worker continues, or if there are any destructive consequences). The term 'cancel' is vague and lacks operational detail.

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 9-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. It contains no fluff, but could benefit from a bit more context without becoming lengthy. However, conciseness is judged positively here given the clarity of the core action.

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 has no output schema or annotations, and the description is very brief. It does not explain what happens after cancellation (e.g., return value, state change) or the implications of the action. Given the complexity (3 required params, a potentially destructive operation), the description is incomplete and leaves important gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, but those descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Node ID', 'Worker ID', 'Cancellation cause'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning, such as valid values for 'cause' (e.g., 'user_cancelled', 'error'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the basic job but adds little clarity.

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 verb 'Cancel', the resource 'a running worker item', and the constraint 'on a specific node'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tdarr_kill_worker (which likely kills a worker process entirely) and tdarr_disconnect_node. The purpose is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tdarr_kill_worker or tdarr_alter_worker_limit. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The lack of usage context forces the agent to rely on guessing.

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