Interrupt Generation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., losing progress), prerequisites (active job required), or whether the operation is safe/destructive. The endpoint reference does not add behavioral transparency. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.

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 that is fully front-loaded, concise, and includes the essential information without waste. Every word is purposeful and contributes to clarity.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and endpoint, but it lacks context about the state of the system (e.g., does it require an active job, what happens to results). Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but could benefit from clarifying the impact on the current job.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty, and the description correctly avoids redundant parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which applies here as no further clarification is needed.

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 action ('Interrupt') and the target resource ('current generation job'). It also provides the specific API endpoint, which adds technical specificity. Among siblings like 'skip' and 'restart', this uniquely identifies the operation of stopping an ongoing generation.

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 usage context (when you need to halt generation) but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'skip' or 'restart'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate scenario from the verb 'interrupt', leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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