Kill a running Wiro task

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that the operation 'changes remote state and can discard in-progress work.' Annotations already note destructiveHint=true, but the description elaborates on the nature of the side effects, which is valuable for the agent.

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: the first states the primary action concisely, and the second adds a warning and the alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage distinction, and side effects without needing to explain return values or parameter details, which are already in the structured fields.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (taskid and tasktoken), achieving 100% coverage. The description itself does not add parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries 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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and clearly identifies the resource ('a task that is already running'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cancel_task, which is for queued tasks, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 states when to use this tool (for a running task) and provides a direct alternative: 'Use cancel_task for a task that is still queued.' This gives the agent clear guidance on choosing between the two related tools.

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