Interrupt a running turn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the thread and session survive and that a new message can be sent afterwards, which is a key consequence. However, it does not address error conditions (e.g., no running turn), required permissions, or idempotency, leaving gaps.

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 sentences and gets directly to the point. It front-loads the action and provides essential consequences without unnecessary words.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the main functionality and the survival of the thread/session. However, it lacks information about error behavior and does not clarify how this tool relates to the sibling 'stop_thread', which is important contextual information.

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 contains one required string 'threadId' with no description, and the description makes no mention of parameters. The threadId is implied by the tool name and text, but the description adds no explicit semantic detail to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool interrupts the agent's current turn on a thread, using the analogy 'like pressing stop'. It further specifies that the thread and session survive, which clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'stop_thread', so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 a clear use case: interrupt a running turn, then send a new message afterwards. It implies this is a soft stop, but it does not mention when to choose this over 'stop_thread' or other alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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