cancel_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a command is canceled; it does not disclose side effects, whether cancellation is permanent, error behavior for already-finished commands, or response/return behavior.

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?

One sentence with no waste: verb, resource, and eligibility states are all included. The core information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the target command state. However, it leaves gaps around behavioral context such as permanence and error handling, and it does not mention how to obtain the id or what result to expect.

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%, with the id already documented as 'Command id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but no additional compensation is needed given the complete schema.

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 ('Cancel') and resource ('command'), and narrows scope to 'queued or running', making it clear which objects are eligible. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get_command, list_commands, and run_command.

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 'queued or running' qualifier implies when cancellation is valid, but the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that completed commands are out of scope and that get_command/list_commands are for inspecting command status.

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