fence_abort

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the intent remains fenced and subsequent fence_prepare calls for the same intent are rejected, preventing silent re-execution after a possible side effect. This adds crucial context beyond the schema's data definitions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the critical consequence. No filler or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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 covers the purpose and the significant blocking behavior, making it clear when to call and what will happen. It doesn't mention return values or explicit preconditions like a prior fence_prepare call, though those are implied by the 'prepared' parameter and the fencing behavior. Slightly more detail on the expected response or error cases would make it fully complete.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra param-level 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 states it 'Report[s] that a prepared effect failed or its outcome is unknown,' naming a specific action and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by contrasting with commit/prepare semantics.

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 explicitly defines when to use: when 'a prepared effect failed or its outcome is unknown.' The description also explains the consequence of using it (intent stays fenced, later fence_prepare calls rejected), but it does not explicitly name fence_commit as the success-path alternative, leaving the contrast implicit rather than fully explicit.

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