cancel_work_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the cancellation does not log changes, which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not mention other side effects (e.g., session state, any cleanup) or expected outcomes, leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the key context: it targets an active session and specifies that no changes are logged. It does not elaborate on error cases or return values, but for this simple tool, the coverage is 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 parameter, taskId, with a clear description ('Task ID to cancel session for'). Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter's purpose is directly tied to the tool's action, the description adds sufficient meaning beyond the raw 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 verb (cancel), the resource (work session), and the scope (active session). It also adds the nuance 'without logging changes,' which distinguishes it from related tools like complete_task_work. The purpose is 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 when to use the tool (when you need to cancel an active work session) but does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions for not using it. It is sufficient for basic usage but lacks explicit guidance compared to the high bar.

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