Interrupt a Grok Bot

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by clarifying scope of the destruction: 'Its conversation and memory stay,' which tells the agent the stop is limited to the current turn and does not wipe state. It doesn't say what happens to the partial turn output or whether a follow-up is needed.

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 short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the state-preservation caveat immediately after. No filler or 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 single-optional-param tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential behavioral context. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens after the interrupt (does the bot need to be re-prompted), but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is a single optional 'agent' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description mentions no parameter detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 verb and resource — 'Stop the Grok Bot's current turn' — which is immediately distinguishable from the read/list/ask siblings. An agent can tell exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition — 'when it is doing the wrong thing or the plan changed' — which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use (e.g. versus grokbot_ask or check), so it doesn't reach the explicit routing tier.

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