hermes_task_cancel

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (all false) by explicitly warning that cancellation is only a request and that Hermes may continue underlying computation. This is a critical behavioral disclosure that prevents the agent from assuming the task will be stopped, and it surfaces a non-obvious execution semantic.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Request task cancellation') and immediately follows with the most important caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and has an output schema, so the description only needs to cover the critical behavioral uncertainty, which it does. It doesn't discuss edge cases (e.g., cancelling a completed task), but given the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, this is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (task_id and timeout) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information about parameter usage or syntax, so it relies on the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 'Request task cancellation' clearly identifies the action (request cancel) and the target (a task), and the 'request' caveat immediately distinguishes it from guarantee-style operations. This separates it cleanly from sibling tools like hermes_task_get, hermes_tasks_list, and hermes_task_wait.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose cancel over wait or get, nor any mention of conditions or exclusions. It doesn't tell an agent when cancellation is appropriate or when it might be too late to attempt.

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