abort-actor-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 mentions that the run must be active and that results include updated run details, but it does not disclose whether aborts are irreversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens to intermediate results. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the return type. No filler or 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential information: the action, the applicable run state, and the response content. It lacks error-handling context (e.g., what if the run is already finished), but this is a minor gap for a straightforward abort action.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail; the phrase 'currently starting or running' reinforces runId semantics but is already implied by 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 states a specific verb ('Abort') and resource ('Actor run'), and qualifies the target state ('currently starting or running'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-actor-run, which reads run details rather than mutating 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 phrase 'currently starting or running' provides a clear contextual condition for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as checking run status with get-actor-run first.

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