pipeline_abort

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

The description states the action ('marks as aborted') and a key behavioral detail ('completed steps are preserved'). No annotations exist, so burden is on description. Lacks info on undo capability, permissions, or side effects, but adequate for a simple abort.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus one parameter doc. Front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence 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?

For a simple abort tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, effect, and parameter meaning. No output schema exists, but return value is likely straightforward. Sibling tools are many but well-differentiated.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so description adds meaning by explaining 'execution_id: The pipeline execution ID.' This goes beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Abort') and resource ('running or paused pipeline'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like pipeline_pause, pipeline_resume, and pipeline_status. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for running or paused pipelines, but does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., already aborted or completed pipelines) or compare to alternatives like cancel_job. Still, the context is clear.

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