abort_attempt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key side effects: the server verifies the hash, publishes a dereferenceable copy, and optionally links a replacement attempt. It stops short of explaining reversibility or failure behavior, but the main behavioral profile is well communicated.

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 dense sentences each carry weight: purpose, required inputs plus verification behavior, and the optional parameter. There is no filler or repetition of the schema content.

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?

The description explains the purpose, the verification mechanism, and the published outcome, which is helpful for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. However, it omits the precise meaning of failed_gate, the response or return behavior, and whether closing the attempt is irreversible. These gaps matter for an abort operation with six parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'typed failure' to failed_gate_kind, 'exact JSON receipt string' to preflight_receipt, and 'later replacement attempt' to successor_attempt_id. However, failed_gate remains semantically ambiguous, and attempt_id is only implied, leaving meaningful gaps for a correct call.

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 states a specific verb ('close'), a specific resource ('your open attempt'), and a precise condition ('without a measurement after a predeclared admissibility gate fires'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_measurement or mint_attempt, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after an admissibility gate fires and when there is no measurement to submit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear from the wording and the sibling set.

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