gemini_interrupt_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them by saying context is retained and existing file changes persist. It stops short of describing in-flight behavior (e.g., whether a running tool call is aborted mid-execution or whether interruption is immediate).

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the consequential side-effects immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the safety and state consequences adequately. The unresolved identification of 'target' is the notable remaining gap for a single-parameter tool where that parameter is required.

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 single parameter 'target' has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description says nothing about it — whether it is an agent ID, name, or handle, or what format is accepted. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Interrupt a Gemini agent') and the effect ('stop active work'), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling gemini_agent_cancel, which plausibly does something similar, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that the agent 'remains available for follow-up with retained context' hints that this is a soft stop rather than a teardown, which is the main selection cue. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as gemini_agent_cancel or gemini_wait_agent.

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