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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining that unfinished candidate work may be discarded, that retrying does not resume the input, that completed changes are not undone, and that access to the conversation is required. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive, idempotent call.

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 dense sentences, each carrying distinct load: action and trigger first, consequences second, prerequisites and idempotency last. No filler or repetition.

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, idempotent mutation with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers consequences, reversibility and auth prerequisites well. The remaining gap is parameter documentation, which is entirely absent for a four-parameter tool.

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 0% across four parameters, including a non-obvious 'preparation_token' with a 70-character minimum, and the description explains none of them. The phrase 'the specified ... work input' only faintly hints at input_id; session_id, workspace_id and preparation_token are left entirely to inference.

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 (interrupt/cancel) and a precisely scoped resource: the specified queued or running work input. The scope qualifier ('queued or running') distinguishes it from siblings like request_work or start_preparation without ambiguity.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user asks to stop it') and clear exclusions ('does not undo completed changes or stop unrelated production runs'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool for adjacent needs, so it is strong but not fully routing-aware.

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