abort_import

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it asks Gigwa to cancel the process, returns whether the request was accepted, and recommends confirmation via polling. This adequately covers the tool's actions and limitations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then providing necessary details about usage and follow-up. Every sentence is informative and concise with no redundant information.

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 has a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description sufficiently covers the return value and next steps. It is complete for a straightforward cancellation tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a description of the progress_token format. The description adds crucial context about the token's origin (from imports with wait=False) and its purpose, enriching the parameter's meaning 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?

The description clearly states 'Abort a running import (or other long process)' with the specific input 'progress token'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_dartseq, import_vcf, and get_import_progress by focusing on cancellation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to cancel a running import) and how to obtain the progress token (by setting wait=False on import calls). It also advises polling get_import_progress to confirm cancellation, providing clear usage context.

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