abort_optimization

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retries, which the description doesn't mention. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as effects on ongoing processes or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides minimal additional context.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Abort an optimization.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided, and annotations only covering idempotency, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what aborting entails (e.g., stopping a process vs. deletion), potential side effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions no parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. With 1 required parameter (optimizationId), the description should clarify its purpose and format, but it adds no semantic information beyond what's inferred from the tool name.

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 'Abort an optimization' clearly states the action (abort) and target (optimization), but it's vague about what 'optimization' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_optimization' or 'stop_live_algorithm'. It's functional but lacks specificity about the resource being affected.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_optimization' or 'stop_live_algorithm', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., an optimization must be running). The description is standalone with no context for selection among similar tools.

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