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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed (unfinished tool calls, open interactions, pending steering, in-flight processes) and, critically, what survives (agent stays active, queued messages retained, already-returned processes keep running). It also discloses the no-op return contract ('affected false'), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the survival semantics, then the edge case. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide whether and how to call the tool; nothing is redundant.

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 destructive turn-cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation scope, the post-condition state of the agent, and the no-op response ('affected false'). Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and the four parameters (agentID, orgID, projectID, actor) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stops the agent's current turn') and immediately enumerates the exact scope: unfinished tool calls, open interactions, in-flight run_command processes, and pending steering messages. This is distinguishable at a glance from siblings like agents_archive or agents_input, which act on the agent's lifecycle or feed it input rather than halting an in-progress turn.

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?

Gives clear triggering context (a turn must be in progress) and the null condition ('Returns affected false and changes nothing when no turn is in progress'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as agents_archive or agents_input, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than spelled out.

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