Interrupt a T3 run

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

The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the interruption is 'journaled' and 'never replayed automatically', which is not captured by the annotations. This helps an agent understand side effects and retry semantics beyond the basic readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional journaling/replay detail earns its place by communicating an important behavioral nuance.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves parameter semantics and tool-selection guidance underspecified, which an agent needs when deciding between t3_run_interrupt and t3_thread_interrupt.

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%, and the description does not explain runId or idempotencyKey. The phrase 'one accepted T3 run' hints that runId identifies the target, but the idempotencyKey's role, uniqueness, or replay protection is not addressed.

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 action ('Request interruption') on a specific resource ('one accepted T3 run'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The term 'T3 run' distinguishes it from sibling tools like t3_thread_interrupt, and 'accepted' adds a meaningful scoping constraint.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as t3_thread_interrupt. It implies the target must be an accepted run, but does not explain what to do for non-accepted runs or when a different interrupt/wait tool would be appropriate.

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