cancel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that cancellation only applies before execution begins, but says nothing about what happens on a late cancel (error vs. no-op), required permissions, or idempotency.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the constraining condition is placed where it matters. It could still be a touch richer without becoming verbose.

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 values need no explanation, and the single-parameter surface is simple. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves the failure mode (command already started) and permission requirements unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents command_id. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier's scope or source, which is acceptable at this baseline.

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 names a specific verb (снимает/cancels) and resource (команду/command) and scopes it to commands not yet picked up by processing. That distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like execute or query, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 precondition 'обработка ещё не начала выполнять' implies when the call will succeed and implicitly excludes already-running commands. However, it gives no guidance on what to do instead when a command is already executing, and names no alternative tool.

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