Cancel Image Tasks

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses that queued/preparing tasks will not dispatch images, that running tasks only stop local waiting and are re-marked 'unknown', and that remote stop/refund is not guaranteed. This is exactly the caveat an agent needs before invoking a cancel, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the per-state consequences; every clause carries information. The semicolon-separated structure is slightly compressed but readable and waste-free.

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?

Behavioral consequences are well covered and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the definition leaves the three required parameters (especially checkpointer/thread_id) unexplained. For a 3-required-param mutation tool, that is a meaningful completeness gap.

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% for all three required parameters. The description only vaguely implies task_ids ('指定任务') and says nothing about what checkpointer or thread_id mean or how to obtain them, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('取消指定任务' / cancel specified tasks) and immediately qualifies behavior by task state (queued/preparing vs running). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling tool to differentiate itself from alternatives like get_image_tasks or submit_image_tasks.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining the effect in each task state, which helps an agent decide whether cancelling is worthwhile. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing and never points to an alternative tool for related needs (e.g., checking status before cancelling).

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