task_cancel

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds crucial context: 'Work already applied is not rolled back' and 'Audited', plus the preview/cancel confirmation behavior. This exceeds basic annotation coverage without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then delivers behavior and parameter details in a structured, efficient format. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundant wording.

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 cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: preview vs. actual cancellation, non-rollback of applied work, audit trail, and parameter origins. It could benefit from stating what the return value looks like or how success/failure is reported, but it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: pool_id as desktop-pool id, task_id sourced from task_status, confirm's preview/cancel behavior, and target's config.yaml origin/default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions.

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 begins with '[WRITE] Cancel a running pool task' with a concrete example ('in-progress image push'). This clearly identifies the verb (cancel), resource (pool task), and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_status and pool_push_image.

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 provides guidance on how to use cancel (confirm=False previews, confirm=True cancels) and references task_status as the source for task_id, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for cancellation of other resource types.

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