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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations: it clarifies that terminal runs are unaffected, which reinforces the idempotentHint and qualifies the destructiveHint. It also discloses the ownership requirement. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 conveys the core action, scope, and an important edge case. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple destructive action with annotations and a fully documented schema. It explains the main operation and the terminal-run behavior, though it doesn't mention what happens if the runId doesn't exist or whether the abort is reversible; annotations cover safety context.

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%, so both runId and gracefully are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but it also doesn't need to because the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Abort'), a clear resource ('Actor run'), and important scoping conditions ('caller-owned', 'starting or running'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-actor-run, which only reads run state.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use conditions: only for runs that are starting or running, and only caller-owned runs. It also implicitly says when not to use it by noting 'Terminal runs are unchanged', though it doesn't name an alternative tool or explicitly contrast with get-actor-run.

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