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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the state-dependent no-op behavior and the word "Requests" implying the abort is an asynchronous request rather than a guaranteed immediate kill. It does not say what happens to a partially written run's output, which would have earned a 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded with the caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant with the title or with structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers the essential semantics; the only gap is the graceful-abort tradeoff, which the schema partially carries.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the run-state context that determines whether runId matters at all, but says nothing about the gracefully flag beyond what its schema description already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Requests abort of an Actor run") plus a scope qualifier ("starting or running"), which is clearly distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools listed. It stops short of differentiating within a family of run-management tools, since no such siblings appear here.

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 states an explicit pre-condition (run must be starting or running) and an explicit no-op case ("No effect if the run already finished"), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not discuss when to choose a graceful vs. immediate abort, leaving the main usage decision to the schema flag.

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