interrupt_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the state change to interrupted, preservation of partial output, and idempotency. This adequately informs the agent about side effects and behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and essential details (state change, partial output, idempotency). Every word contributes meaning; there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core effect and behavior. However, it could briefly mention error conditions (e.g., if node is not in a generating/queued state) or prerequisites, but these are minor gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond their schema descriptions ('mapId' and 'nodeId'), and the tool description already explains the action sufficiently without parameter-level enrichment.

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 explicitly states 'Stop an in-flight generation', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly explains the effect: 'a generating or queued node flips to interrupted with partial output preserved', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'retry_node' or 'submit_node'.

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 implies when to use the tool (to interrupt a generating or queued node) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. While the tool's name is self-explanatory, the description lacks direct usage context relative to siblings.

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