arm_abort_ci_job

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action without disclosing that aborting is likely irreversible, may require specific permissions, or that the buildNumber parameter defaults to the latest build. The word 'ongoing' hints it only affects running jobs, but side effects remain unclear.

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 description is a single sentence with the endpoint and action, efficiently front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite clear purpose and schema-documented parameters, the description lacks essential context for a mutating/destructive operation: no warning about irreversibility, no behavior when the job is not running, and no relationship to other CI tools. With no annotations or output schema, this is insufficient.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the endpoint pattern, which mirrors the parameter names. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no additional context is provided.

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 clearly states the tool aborts an ongoing CI job, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arm_trigger_build (creates builds) and arm_poll_job_status (checks status). The endpoint format also clarifies the operation.

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 implies the tool is used to stop a running CI job, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, nor any exclusion scenarios (e.g., if the job is already finished). No mention of when not to use it.

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