Cancel a queued Wiro task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly adds the operational boundary (queued only) and the state change. It doesn't explicitly mention idempotency or failure behavior for non-queued tasks, but the annotations cover idempotency and safety, and the description adds sufficient scoping context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the alternative is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what to use instead. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description adds no new meaning beyond what's already documented. It doesn't clarify when to prefer taskid over tasktoken or how they interact, so it stays at the baseline expected when schemas carry the semantic load.

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 resource (task), and a clear condition (still queued, before worker assignment). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling `kill_task`, which handles started tasks, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 explicitly provides the alternative: 'Use `kill_task` for a task that has already started.' This gives a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive, leaving no ambiguity about which tool fits which scenario.

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