Cancel a task, subtask or group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of side-effect disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: pending recipients see the item as canceled, prior answers remain, group cancellation cascades to still-pending instances and reports a finished count, and the action is irreversible. These are substantive behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 short sentences carry the action, resource types, key side effects, and an irreversibility warning without repetition. The most load-bearing information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main semantics: what gets canceled, what happens to recipients, group behavior, and non-reversibility. It stops short of specifying exact return/error behavior, but the core call decision is well supported.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra meaning by explaining the significance of id types, especially that canceling a group_id cancels all still-pending instances and reports already-finished ones. The note, reason, and superseded_by parameters are left to the already-complete 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?

The description opens with a specific action, "Withdraw something sent earlier," and names the exact resource forms accepted: tsk_, sub_, and grptsk_ ids. This clearly identifies the tool as a cancellation operation and distinguishes it from siblings like send_task and append_subtask.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context: withdraw something already sent, and it clarifies that pending recipients can no longer answer while existing answers are preserved. It also warns that the operation is not undoable, which is a useful usage caution, though it does not name explicit alternative tools.

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