cancel_live_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'cancel/terminate' implying a destructive action, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, impact on other strands, or what the response contains. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, and the key identifier is stated upfront.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after cancellation, whether confirmation is provided, or any consequences. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 100% (the only parameter, strand_name, is well-documented as 'name or task ID'). The description repeats that but adds no new meaning, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (cancel/terminate) and the resource (strand execution), and specifies the identifier (task ID or strand name). It is distinct from sibling tools like process_kill, which targets processes, so an agent can readily understand its purpose.

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 it is for currently running strands but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no comparison to process_kill or other cancellation tools, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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