team_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description does the important work itself: it discloses that cancellation is a request, that in-flight agent turns are allowed to finish, and that no new round starts. That is genuinely useful non-obvious semantics for a mutation tool. It omits idempotency and behavior when the session is not running, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with the scoping constraint and the key behavioral caveat front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the async-cancellation semantics are covered. But for a cancellation operation with zero annotation coverage and fully undocumented parameters, the definition leaves real gaps: what happens on an unknown/already-finished session, and whether the call is idempotent.

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 both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not — neither session_id nor workspace_path is mentioned or explained. The agent gets no guidance on ID format or whether the path must match the session's origin.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request cancellation of a team session') and scopes it to 'running in this MCP process', which separates it from the launch/report siblings like team_run_task and team_report. It does not name a sibling as an explicit alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'running in this MCP process' implies the precondition (there must be a live session) but the description never says when to call this versus alternatives such as letting the session end naturally, nor what to do if the session is already stopped. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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