stop generation

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not say what happens to partially produced output, whether the session remains resumable, or what the response reports. destructiveHint=false combined with a "terminate" verb is at minimum worth explaining, and the description adds nothing about it. The only behavioral value added is the scoping to currently running tasks.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the operative scope (currently generating or running) is front-loaded. It is efficient, but the brevity is partly achieved by omitting necessary detail rather than by tight editing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations covering side effects, and an undescribed `force` flag, the definition is under-specified. An agent cannot predict the effect on a running session or decide when force should be set to true.

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 schema documents session and sessionId (alias) but leaves `force` completely undescribed, and the tool description never mentions it either, so the highest-stakes parameter is undocumented in both places. The description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters beyond what the schema already says.

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 gives a specific verb (终止) and a specific target (当前正在生成或运行中的会话任务), so the agent can tell it is not a read or navigation tool like minimax_read_session or minimax_tail_sessions. It does not name any sibling as an alternative or complement, so differentiation relies on inference from the verb.

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?

"正在生成或运行中" implies the trigger condition: the tool is relevant only while a task is in flight. There is no guidance about what to do when no task is running, whether the call is safe to repeat, or which sibling to use instead (e.g. minimax_get_result to collect output, minimax_auto_resume to restart).

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