ddflow_abandon

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the key consequence that an abandoned item will not resume and stops holding its phase open, which prevents an unfinished task from blocking a phase forever. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the central behavioral difference is clearly disclosed.

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 about three sentences and front-loads the purpose before the usage condition and blocking distinction. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the blocking comparison earns its place because it prevents a likely invocation error.

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 three-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description plus schema explains when to call, what the phase implication is, and how force affects sub-tasks. A minor gap is that it never explicitly says the item remains in the system rather than being deleted, but this is mostly inferable from the 'phase open' phrasing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents id, force, and reason with meaningful descriptions; the tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Stop work') on a specific resource ('an item') and clarifies that it is not completion. The explicit comparison to blocking distinguishes it from a key sibling tool, ddflow_block, without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when a task turns out to be unnecessary or impossible.' It also gives a clear when-not-to-use rule by contrasting with blocking: blocked items wait and resume, abandoned items do not. This is actionable routing guidance.

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