Stop a thread's agent session

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 transparently explains that the provider process is shut down, the thread and history persist, and a new session auto-starts. This is sufficient to understand the side effects, though it does not address permissions or edge cases like in-flight messages.

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 only two sentences long and immediately states the action. Each sentence contributes distinct behavioral information without redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 tool with a single simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what stops, what persists, and what happens next. It lacks additional context like when to prefer this over interrupt_thread, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only refers to 'a thread' generically and does not elaborate on what threadId should represent or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'shut down' and clearly identifies the resource ('provider process attached to a thread'). It also distinguishes itself from potential sibling tools by stating that the thread and history remain and a new session starts automatically, making the tool's purpose 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 context for when to use the tool (to stop a thread's agent session) and its consequence (a new session starts on the next message). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like interrupt_thread or state when not to use it, falling short of full exclusionary guidance.

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