cancel_ocr_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It is transparent about the non-obvious delay ('在当前分片结束后生效') and the data-loss consequence ('已识别内容不返回'). It does not cover idempotency or invalid-task behavior, but for a simple cancellation tool this is still strong disclosure.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core action and packs the crucial timing and content-return caveats into a parenthetical. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what is canceled, when cancellation takes effect, and what is not returned. It could additionally suggest confirming via get_ocr_status or describing already-completed task behavior, but those are minor gaps for this tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the task_id parameter format, provenance, or validation. The property name is self-descriptive, and the tool name ties it to the OCR task, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('取消' / cancel) and resource ('异步 OCR 任务'), and adds precise behavioral detail about when it takes effect and what happens to recognized content. This differentiates it from siblings like start_pdf_ocr and get_ocr_status.

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 implies usage for stopping an in-progress asynchronous OCR task, and the parenthetical distinguishes it from immediate-cancel semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference from sibling names.

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