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. 'when possible' hints that cancellation can fail, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether cancellation is idempotent, what happens to a running task mid-execution, or whether it is reversible.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the 'Args:/Returns: JSON result' boilerplate is filler — the return value is already covered by the output schema, and the Args block duplicates the parameter name.

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?

An output schema exists so return format needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no guidance about eligibility or error conditions, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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, but 'Task id to cancel' only restates the parameter name without adding format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to get a task id). Minimal value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Cancel) and resource (task), and scopes it to 'queued or running' tasks, which tells the agent which task states are eligible. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_task, list_tasks, or review_task, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

'when possible' is the only usage hint and is too vague to guide selection — it doesn't say when cancellation is impossible, what conditions are required, or what alternative to use if it fails. No alternatives among the many task-related siblings are named.

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