task_cancel

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint), the description explicitly warns that 'Work already applied is not rolled back' and notes the operation is 'Audited'. This adds critical behavioral context not present in the structured data.

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 compact, with a clear header, a brief clarification of the confirm flag, and a structured list of arguments. There is no waste; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool's purpose, parameters, and safety implications are covered. It lacks an explicit description of the preview output or edge-case behaviors, but given the simplicity of the tool and the richness of annotations, it is adequately complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description defines each parameter: pool_id, task_id (from task_status), confirm (preview vs cancel), and target (from config.yaml). It fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making every parameter's meaning clear.

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 states a specific action ('Cancel a running pool task') with an example ('in-progress image push'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_status. This is a specific verb+resource pair.

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 explains the confirm flag's dual role (preview vs cancel) and references task_status as the source for task_id, giving clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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