oc_task_cancel

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

The description details the cancellation mechanism (best-effort, work-unit boundary), effects on PENDING vs terminal tasks, and transitions. This goes beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true) and provides full behavioral transparency.

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 sentences, each valuable, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Concisely covers purpose, behavior, and edge cases.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, behavior, limitations, and state transitions. No 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?

The schema already describes task_id as 'REQUIRED task_id returned by oc_task_start' (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond confirming it from start. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states it requests cancellation of a background task, specifies the best-effort behavior, and explains effects on different task states (terminal unaffected, PENDING to CANCELLED). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oc_task_start or oc_task_get.

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 description provides implicit guidance: use when you need to cancel a task, noting it is best-effort and does not affect terminal tasks. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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