interrupt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state guard, the refusal on idle, the ~2 s observation delay, the expected resulting statuses, and that queued messages are subsequently delivered. It omits permission/auth requirements and error behavior for an invalid terminal_id.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then precondition, then post-condition. Every clause (state guard, refusal, ~2 s delay, queued-message follow-up) carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers timing and post-conditions, and with no annotations it supplies the needed behavioral context (refusal conditions, side effects). Missing only auth/permission notes and invalid-id behavior.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage; the description only implies that terminal_id identifies the terminal whose turn is interrupted. The parameter is largely self-evident, so no real syntax or format detail is added beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop a terminal's current turn') plus the escape-key equivalent, and scopes it to the turn rather than the session, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like shutdown_session or restart_terminal.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('when a worker is going in circles') and an explicit precondition/exclusion ('only while its status is processing or waiting_user_answer; an idle prompt ... is refused'). No sibling alternative is named for comparison, so it falls just short of the top band.

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