human_cancel_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cancellation attempts both local and backend, may not succeed if completed, and is permanent. Additional details on failure scenarios would raise this to 5.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, returns, examples, don't use). Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and a clear description of return values, the tool's behavior is fully described. No output schema needed as returns are explained in text.

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 100% and the description restates the parameter's purpose ('The UUID of the task to cancel') without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema's format constraint.

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: 'Cancel a pending or in-progress human task.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting that cancellation is permanent and suggesting when to use alternatives like human_get_task_status.

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?

Includes a 'DON'T USE WHEN' section with explicit conditions (task already completed, modification needed) and directs to alternative tools: human_get_task_status for status check and dispatch new task for modification.

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