interrupt_thread

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: interruption is a 'request', and the target turn is recorded so a retry cannot accidentally interrupt a later turn. This is a useful, non-obvious behavioral guarantee.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and target; the second adds a crucial retry-safety detail. Both sentences earn their 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 destructive, non-idempotent operation with no output schema, the description covers the most important operational details: what is interrupted, how the target is selected, and how retries behave. It omits side effects or prerequisites, but the core calling context is sufficiently clear.

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 low at 25%, and the description only partially compensates. It clarifies that the turn can be 'current' or 'explicitly selected,' which maps to the optional turnId, and it reinforces the retry behavior tied to operationId. However, environmentId and threadId are not explained in the description.

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 a specific action ('request interruption') and a clear resource ('the current or explicitly selected turn'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and immediately distinguishes it from siblings like start_thread, get_thread, and send_message.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it targets either the currently running turn or an explicitly selected turn. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the selection guidance and the retry caveat convey the operational context well enough.

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