dsh_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is conditional on authorization, that it does not delete the session or roll back files, and that pending queued messages may remain. It also advises checking state afterwards, which is useful behavioral context. It could go further by describing what 'stop' means for the session's state or whether it is reversible, but the provided details are substantive.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and authorization, the second clarifies what it does not do, and the third warns about pending messages and advises checking state. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, the authorization condition, non-destructive behavior, and a post-condition caveat. It does not describe the return value or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. The description references 'the specified DSH session', which maps to session_id, but it does not add format, source, or validation details beyond the schema's minLength: 1. Since there is only one parameter and its purpose is inferable from the tool name and description, a 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 clearly states the action ('Stop the active turn'), the target resource ('the specified DSH session'), and the authorization requirement ('when authorized'). It also distinguishes itself from related operations by explicitly noting it does not delete the session or roll back files, which helps an agent understand its scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to stop an active turn in a specified session. It also gives a practical follow-up instruction ('check state afterwards') and notes that pending queued messages may remain. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling list and the 'does not delete session' clarification imply boundaries.

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