StopWorkflowInstances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'terminate', implying a destructive action, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether termination is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related resources, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 phrase '终止工作流实例', which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. It earns its place by stating the purpose directly.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation (termination) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a destructive operation in a complex workflow system, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'Ids' (workflow instance ID list) and 'Comment' (remark information). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format details or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra value from the description.

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 '终止工作流实例' (terminate workflow instances) clearly states the action (terminate) and resource (workflow instances), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'StopTaskInstances' or 'DeleteWorkflowInstances', leaving ambiguity about scope or distinctions. It avoids tautology but lacks sibling differentiation, making it vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'StopTaskInstances', 'DeleteWorkflowInstances', or 'SuspendTaskInstances'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for termination, offering only a basic action without usage context.

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