Cancel a queued Wiro task

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readonly behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies that cancellation only applies to queued tasks and that started tasks require a different tool. It also notes remote state change, though that is somewhat implied by the annotations. Could have gone further by addressing error behavior for already-started tasks, but the sibling reference compensates.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a state-change warning, then a sibling tool reference. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, full schema parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its preconditions, and the alternative. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters `taskid` and `tasktoken` are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is necessary at this coverage level. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Cancel'), a resource ('a queued Wiro task'), and a clear scope ('before worker assignment'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `kill_task`, which handles started tasks, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('still queued, before worker assignment') and provides a direct alternative for the other case ('Use `kill_task` for a task that has already started'). This fully answers the when-to-use vs alternatives question.

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