Abort Actor run

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context: no effect on terminal statuses and that the result includes updated run details. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a clear core statement, a short usage guideline, and relevant examples. It is not overly verbose, though the examples are somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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 two simple parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context: when it works, when it does nothing, and what the response includes. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description does not need to explain parameters in depth. The gracefully parameter's 30-second timeout is already in the schema, and the description adds only usage examples rather than new semantic detail.

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 the tool aborts an Actor run that is currently starting or running, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the lifecycle states it applies to and the no-op statuses.

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 explicitly says to use it when a run is taking too long or is misconfigured, and it lists terminal statuses where the call has no effect. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough.

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