Stop a background run

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

Annotations already convey idempotent and destructive hints. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: that it terminates both the worker and the spawned grok process, that stopping a finished run is harmless, and that a cancelled run may still yield a session id. This latter point is a non-obvious side effect that an agent must know, which is valuable transparency.

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 focused sentences: the first states what the tool does and its coverage, the second clarifies edge cases. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds distinct value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no output objects), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameter, side effects, and edge cases. The schema and annotations are leveraged well, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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 input schema documents the one parameter (runId) with a format constraint and description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking the parameter to the return values of background calls for grok/review/websearch, reinforcing its provenance and acceptable values, which warrants an above-baseline score.

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 ('Terminate') and clearly identifies the resources it acts on: a background run, the worker, and the spawned grok process. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming the three run types it applies to (grok, review, websearch), making its scope precise and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance by listing the types of runs it applies to (grok, review, websearch). It also explains a borderline case ('stopping an already-finished run is not an error'), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool without hesitation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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