Abort Actor run

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the abort only affects starting/running runs, has no effect on terminal states, and returns updated run details. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with and enriches these traits.

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 appropriately sized with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. The USAGE and USAGE EXAMPLES sections are helpful but slightly repetitive; overall effective but could be slightly more concise.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is complete: it covers purpose, conditions for use, behavior on different run statuses, and return value expectation. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100% with both runId and gracefully having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the usage examples hint at gracefully but do not add new meaning.

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 'Abort an Actor run that is currently starting or running' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-actor-run (read-only) and call-actor (start) by focusing on aborting, and notes conditions where it has no effect.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need to stop a run that is taking too long or misconfigured.' It implies when not to use by stating it has no effect on finished/failed/aborted/timed-out runs, but does not explicitly name alternatives like get-actor-run for monitoring.

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