exp_abort

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description usefully adds the side effects the agent could not otherwise know: recordings are closed and factor values are restored. It does not confirm the idempotent behavior or describe auth requirements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the two side effects appended; no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus the side-effect sentence cover safety and effect. However, the complete absence of parameter documentation leaves a real gap for a mutation tool that takes an argument.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it mentions neither 'name' nor 'reason'. The agent gets no help on what to pass, and the 'reason' default of 'requested' is never explained.

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 verb and resource ('Stop a running experiment') plus the effect, which cleanly separates it from exp_run, exp_status, and exp_list in the sibling set. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'after the current step' gives an implied condition of use, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to exp_run or exp_status. Usage must be inferred.

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