cancel_task

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds specific behavioral detail: it terminates the worker process tree. This informs the agent of the full scope of destruction, which is valuable context.

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 sentence of 12 words, with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and appends the important detail about the worker process tree.

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 one-parameter cancel tool, the description covers the action, applicable states, and the destructive effect. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but given the lack of output schema and annotations, this is acceptable.

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 mention the task_id parameter or any semantics beyond its name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining where the ID comes from or any format requirements.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('task') with additional scope ('queued or active') and effect ('terminate its worker process tree'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task, list_tasks, and approve_task.

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 phrase 'queued or active task' provides clear context on when to use the tool, implying it is not for completed tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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