dsh_cancel

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 a non-obvious side effect — queued messages stay queued rather than being dropped — but says nothing about whether partial output is preserved, error behavior when no turn is running, or permissions required for a state-mutating operation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded before the queue-behavior caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core action and one important behavioral trait. It stops short of covering failure modes (no running turn) or reversibility, which an agent canceling work would benefit from knowing.

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% and the single sessionId parameter already documents its provenance ('Session id from dsh_open_session or dsh_list_sessions'). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Interrupt') and a precise scope ('the running turn of a Session'), which is unambiguous about what state is affected. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against any sibling like dsh_wait or dsh_read, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

Use case is implied by the verb — interrupt the currently running turn — but there is no explicit guidance on when to cancel versus waiting (dsh_wait) or reading (dsh_read), and no stated preconditions such as whether a turn must actually be running.

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