Abort Environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the action is forceful and targets the latest in-progress deployment, but omits prerequisites like permissions, whether the abort is reversible, what happens to the environment afterward, and any rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the alternative condition. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the critical when-to-use distinction. It lacks post-condition details (e.g., environment state after abort) but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% with a single parameter already described as 'The ID of the environment to abort.' The description adds no syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Forcefully stop an environment's latest deployment while it is in progress.' It also names the sibling tool 'cancel-environment' as the alternative for a different state, making the scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (deployment in progress) and when not to (deployment queued or waiting for user approval), routing the agent to 'cancel-environment' instead. No inference required.

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