Interrupt Sage Session

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral trait that variables are preserved, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the non-destructive nature of the interrupt. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens to the session after interruption (e.g., becomes idle or can resume), but the description covers the core behavior.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff, front-loading the verb and resource, and immediately conveying the key preservation guarantee. Every word adds value.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys purpose and effect. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., no running computation) or session lifecycle after interrupt, but these are minor for a simple interrupt operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the session parameter is fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for a well-covered 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 clearly states the verb 'interrupt' and the resource 'Sage computation', and explicitly notes that variables defined so far are preserved, distinguishing it from siblings like reset_sage_session (which would clear variables) and stop/cancel session (which likely end the session). It is specific and non-tautological.

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 the usage context: use when a computation is running and you want to stop it without losing the workspace state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, such as 'if you want to end the session, use cancel_sage_session instead'. The 'while keeping variables defined so far' clause provides partial differentiation but leaves the exclusion implicit.

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