worker_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive action of terminating the worker process tree and indicates the return value (terminal state). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'cancel' command.

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 succinct with two sentences, front-loading the core action and return value. Every word contributes information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but it is sufficiently complete for a cancel operation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly references the task_id parameter without describing its format or adding meaning. The parameter 'task_id' is left without any elaboration in the description.

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 tool's purpose: cancel a running or queued delegated task and terminate its worker process tree, and it returns the task's terminal state. The verb 'cancel' is specific and directly distinguishes this from sibling tools like worker_delegate and worker_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 tasks that are running or queued, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. It lacks clear context for selecting this tool over siblings beyond the name.

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