abort_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool aborts executions but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether data is lost), rate limits, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as it doesn't clarify if the abort is immediate or reversible.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what happens post-abort, error conditions, or how to verify success, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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%, with both parameters ('run_id' and 'gracefully') well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'gracefully' or how to obtain a 'run_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('abort') and target ('a running actor execution'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resurrect_run' or 'get_run', which would require mentioning it's for stopping active executions versus reviving or inspecting them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the run must be active), exclusions (e.g., not for completed runs), or compare it to siblings like 'resurrect_run' for reviving runs or 'get_run' for checking status, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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