Cancel task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors: that cancellation is a *request* (implying asynchronous, non-guaranteed termination) and that it cascades to a pending confirmation. It omits whether the task is force-terminated, what happens if it already finished, and any permission requirements, so it is partially but not fully transparent.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the side effect appended. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one cascade effect but leaves open what is returned, whether cancellation is acknowledged or confirmed, and how taskId is sourced. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, taskId, which the description never explains (format, where to obtain it, e.g. from computer_get_task or computer_list_targets). The word "task" gives implicit context but no real added meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Request cancellation of a running task") and adds a non-obvious scope note that it also cancels the task's pending confirmation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like computer_execute_task or computer_get_task, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 "running task" weakly implies applicability, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives for stopping or inspecting tasks. The agent must infer the trigger condition.

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