builtin__bg_task_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the SIGTERM followed by SIGKILL escalation, which is meaningful behavioral detail. However, it omits consequences such as task state changes, return values, or whether the operation blocks until termination.

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 crisp sentences: the first states the primary action, the second adds the key behavioral detail. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and signal flow. Yet it lacks guidance on taskId sourcing and post-cancel behavior, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description does not explain the taskId parameter at all. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description offers no guidance on how to obtain or validate taskId, leaving the agent without necessary semantic context even though the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory.

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?

Description explicitly states the action: 'Cancel a running background task' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling bg_task_list, bg_task_get, and bg_task_cleanup tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that taskId should come from bg_task_list, nor that only running tasks are valid, leaving the selection logic entirely to the agent's inference.

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