pbs_stop_task

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: 'stops at the next safe point' and 'can simply be re-run later' complement the idempotentHint and destructiveHint. It also discloses the required permission (PBS_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and confirm=true, which is valuable operational information not present in annotations.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences deliver purpose, use-case, safety behavior, and prerequisites without redundancy. Every clause adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 destructive stop operation, the description covers why, when, what happens, and what is required. The safety note about re-run and the permission requirement make it self-contained; output schema handles return values.

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 description explicitly requires confirm=true, which is critical since the schema has confirm default false and not required. However, it does not explain the 'reason' parameter, and schema description coverage is low (0% per context). The description partially compensates but is not complete for all parameters.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Abort a running PBS task', clearly identifying the resource and action. The example '(e.g. a GC or verify stuck on a slow NFS datastore)' distinguishes this from sibling tools that list, get status, run, or prune.

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?

It gives a concrete scenario of when to use this tool—when a task is stuck—and explains that an interrupted GC or verify can simply be re-run later, which guides decision-making. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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