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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the actual mechanics: the task is marked as cancelled and cancellation is requested from the engine, a late response is excluded from history, and provider work already processed may still incur cost. That cost caveat is valuable given destructiveHint=false, since it warns of a real side effect that the safety annotations do not convey. A 5 is withheld because it never clarifies partial-failure or retry behavior, despite idempotentHint=false.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the authorization requirement is stated twice in near-duplicate form ("Exige chave da conta ou organização e conexão autorizada..." and "Chave da conta ou organização, com conexão externa autorizada em Bots"). The fragment "Retenção segue a escolha do espaço" is also vague and reads as leftover text rather than actionable guidance.

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 annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, state effects, and the cost caveat, which is enough for an agent to call it responsibly. It could still note whether the bot must currently be running or what happens on repeated calls, given idempotentHint=false.

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 single `bot` parameter is fully described in the schema as the id of the bot whose task will be interrupted. The description only restates this indirectly via "tarefa atual de um bot" and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: "Interrompe a tarefa atual de um bot", which is unmistakably distinct from sending, configuring, or registering results on a bot. It falls short of a 5 only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools such as enviar_ao_bot or registrar_resultado_bot.

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?

Usage is implied through the prerequisites (account/org key plus a connection authorized in Bots), which tells the agent under what conditions the call will succeed. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else guidance, and no statement about what to do if the bot has no running task.

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