interrupt_story

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: sends SIGTERM (no-op if exited), commits uncommitted work as a checkpoint, marks story 'interrupted' rather than 'failed', leaves worktree and branch in place, and acquires _plan_lock due to a race condition. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and concurrency concerns.

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 well-structured: the main action is front-loaded, followed by detailed mechanics and a separate paragraph on locking. Each sentence adds value, though the lock explanation is a bit verbose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity and avoids 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?

The description covers the core behavior, side effects, and concurrency rationale, and the existence of an output schema likely handles return values. However, it does not explain the parameters or state prerequisites (e.g., the story must be currently dispatched). Given the detailed nature, it is mostly complete but leaves parameter semantics unresolved.

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 description must compensate by explaining plan_name and story_key. It mentions 'plan' and 'story' in the text but never explicitly defines what these parameters represent or how they are used. An agent would have to infer their meaning from the tool name and context, which is insufficient for unambiguous invocation.

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 a dispatched agent and leave its story resumable.' It details the mechanism (SIGTERM, commit, marking interrupted) which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mark_story_done (which would finalize) or dispatch_story (which starts). The resumability is a unique, well-articulated trait.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to stop a running agent while preserving progress) and mentions that a later dispatch_story call resumes it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for permanent termination) or compare against other status-changing siblings like mark_story_done. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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