Cancel task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information — the cascade kill of child processes — which the annotations do not convey. It does not say what happens to the task's logs, artifacts, or exit state, or what a repeat call against an already-finished task returns.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The most consequential fact — that child processes are killed too — is included without padding.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its blast radius. It omits behavioral edge cases an agent may need: whether it only works on running tasks, what a repeated call returns given idempotentHint, and what is left behind after cancellation.

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 one parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents task_id and ties it to start_task. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('task'), and adds scope: the task plus 'every process it started'. That scope detail lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like discard_task or wait_task. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'a running task' weakly implies the precondition that the task must be active, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings such as discard_task and wait_task are never mentioned, so the agent must infer which lifecycle tool applies.

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