Cancel running slice

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating action (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context: it can unwedge stale 'slicing' states and is safe when idle, which goes beyond the simple annotation flags. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences cover the main action, an edge case, and a safety note. Every phrase adds value with no waste.

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 parameterless action with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, when it applies (including stale state), and its safety profile. No further context is needed.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't need to add parameter details; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately explains the action.

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 ('Abort') and identifies the resource ('a running slice'), and also explains the secondary purpose ('unwedge a stale slicing state'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like slice and get_slice_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 (aborting a running slice, resolving stale state) and includes a safety note ('Safe when idle'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage is well implied.

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