bernstein_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description must explicitly communicate side effects. It states 'changes task state on the Bernstein server,' 'makes network requests,' and describes behavior for terminal tasks. This fully discloses the tool's behavioral footprint.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. Each sentence contributes unique information: purpose, eligible statuses, terminal-task handling, and side effects. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, status constraints, error behavior, and side effects. Minor gaps: no detail on invalid task_id handling or how the reason parameter influences 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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the description does not compensate. It never mentions the 'reason' parameter, and task_id is only implicitly tied to 'one task.' No guidance is given on how to obtain valid task_id values beyond the schema pattern.

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 verb+resource: 'Cancel one task and its subtask tree.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bernstein_shutdown_orchestrator by stating 'orchestrator keeps running.' Listing the cancellable statuses further clarifies scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use: canceling a specific task tree while keeping the orchestrator alive. The enumerating of cancellable statuses and non-error on terminal tasks gives implied usage boundaries, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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