box_interrupt

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint false and openWorldHint true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'best-effort' signals the operation may not be guaranteed, and 'prompt work' clarifies the exact scope of what is interrupted. This transparency is useful for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately states the action and includes a parenthetical that clarifies a key distinction, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral context (best-effort, interrupt, prompt work). It could be more complete by explaining what happens after an interrupt or how it relates to box_resume, but the current description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (boxId) with a description ('Box id (bx_…)'), covering 100% of schema descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('interrupt') and resource ('prompt work on a box'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding 'shell background jobs', setting it apart from sibling tools like box_exec_background and box_job_status.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (interrupting prompt work) and implicitly when not to (shell background jobs). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on scenarios involving sibling tools like box_stop_and_wait, so it falls short of full guidance.

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