interrupt

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious effects: conversation and memory are preserved, and work started inside the bot's app is also halted. Only the absence of error conditions (e.g., no active turn) keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three terse sentences, each carrying distinct information (what stops, what persists, irreversibility), with the core action front-loaded and zero filler.

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 explained, and the description covers the key state consequences of interrupting. It is close to complete, though it omits what happens when no turn is active.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the note that it may be omitted for a single configured bot. The description adds nothing about the agent parameter, so the schema-supplied baseline of 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 ('Stop') and resource ('the contacted bot's current turn'), plus scope ('including work started in its app'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings ask, check, and list, which are read/query oriented.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of an interrupt operation, and 'Cannot undo completed actions' hints at caution, but the description never states when to choose this over simply asking the bot something else or checking status first. No alternatives are named.

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