delegate_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does real work: it discloses the agent-loop abort and the critical side-effect that background processes survive unless kill_children is set. It stops short of stating reversibility, post-cancel state, or behavior on already-finished jobs, but the essential behavioral surface is exposed.

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?

Three terse sentences, main action front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: purpose, abort scope, and the kill_children caveat. No filler or redundant schema restatement.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the cancellation mechanism, and the conditional side effect. Minor gaps remain – error cases (job not found/already finished), idempotency, and return value – but nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 covers kill_children at 50%; the description reinforces that same parameter by tying it to the default background-process behavior, adding mild value. job_id is left to the schema and is self-evident as the job identifier, so no meaningful semantics are added 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?

'Stop a running delegated job' provides a specific verb and resource, and 'Aborts the agent loop' clarifies the mechanism. The action is clearly distinct from sibling tools (delegate_start, delegate_status, delegate_result, ask), though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative as a top-rating definition might.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when a delegated job is running and should be stopped. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't route the agent toward a sibling for related needs (e.g., checking state first via deelegate_status).

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