abort_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('abort') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether the abort is reversible, side effects, rate limits, or what happens to workflow data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context and implications.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the single parameter 'instance_id' is self-explanatory from context. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor provides extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the straightforward single parameter.

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 'Abort an active workflow' clearly states the verb (abort) and resource (workflow), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_task' or 'cancel_elicitation_request' that might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_task' or 'describe_workflow'. It mentions 'active workflow' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or what constitutes an 'active' state, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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