interrupt_sage_session

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that variables are preserved, but says nothing about what happens to the interrupted computation's partial result or whether the interrupt is graceful vs. forceful.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the operation and its distinguishing side effect front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for this simple tool, only missing what happens to the in-flight computation after interruption.

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 100% and the single 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema (workspace naming, bearer-credential warning, default). The description adds no parameter information beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Interrupt') and resource ('a running Sage computation') plus the key side effect ('keeping variables defined so far'). This implicitly distinguishes it from stop_sage_session, cancel_sage_session, and reset_sage_session, which presumably tear down state, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'while keeping variables defined so far' implies the use case (stop work without losing state), which is the same thing that separates it from stop_sage_session and cancel_sage_session. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or alternative is named.

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