terminate_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or behavior when the task is not found. For a termination tool, more transparency about consequences would be expected.

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 words. It is well-structured and directly communicates the tool's purpose without any fluff.

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 simple termination tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it omits details about success/failure behavior, return values, or any side effects on the task's resources. Given a moderate complexity, this is adequate but not 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 only parameter, task_id, is clearly described in the tool description as the identifier used to select the task. The schema provides the type and required status, and the description clarifies its role, achieving full coverage for this simple parameter.

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 action ('Terminates or cancels'), the object ('running agent task'), and the method ('by task ID'). It is specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like run_agent_task and get_agent_status.

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 the appropriate context by specifying 'running agent task', making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the condition is enough for a simple termination action.

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