abort_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the session and its history are KEPT for inspection or resume, that the bridge will never re-prompt an aborted session, and contrasts with end_task's destructive behavior. This gives an agent a solid mental model of side effects.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, persistence behavior, usage trigger, and sibling distinction. No filler or repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and then adds necessary context.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what happens to the session/history, and how it differs from its closest sibling. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so implicitly by repeatedly referencing 'delegation session' and 'session,' making it clear that the required session_id identifies the delegation session whose round is being aborted. The format is not detailed, but the meaning is clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Abort the round running in a delegation session.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool end_task by stating 'Not the same as end_task, which deletes the session.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use it when two spaced task_progress checks show no growth AND the worktree is unchanged.' It also identifies the alternative (end_task) and explains the key difference, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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