Cancel SSH Task Run

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

The description is consistent with annotations (a mutating operation where readOnlyHint=false). It adds 'active' scoping (only running tasks can be canceled) and 'command bus' mechanism, but doesn't disclose what happens if the run has already completed or failed, nor the non-idempotent behavior hinted by idempotentHint=false. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and object with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the sentence is appropriately sized for this simple cancellation operation.

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 2-parameter cancel operation with an output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action, target, and mechanism, but omits useful context like behavior on already-finished runs. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, though the description could have mentioned cancellation semantics without bloating the size.

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 carried the full burden for explaining parameters but says nothing at all about them. The parameter names runId and workspaceId are reasonably self-explanatory, which is the only saving grace, but no additional semantic detail is provided for the two-parameter call.

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 ('Cancels') with a clear object ('active SSH task run') and states the mechanism ('through the command bus'). This clearly differentiates cancellation of a run from sibling operations like clearing runs or reading run logs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the similar-sounding clear_task_runs sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like unfour.ssh.clear_task_runs and unfour.ssh.run_task, an agent could easily confuse 'cancel a run' with 'clear runs' — explicit when/when-not guidance would be valuable, but none is given.

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