transport_abort

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (abort/cancel) and mentions ledger locality in hosted mode. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond localWrites. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise: two sentences plus a line about hosted mode. It front-loads the purpose and adds necessary context without fluff. Every sentence contributes.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, nested object, output schema exists), the description covers essential use cases and parameter guidance. It could add more about cancellation process or return behavior, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining current_run's purpose in hosted/plugin mode and clarifying reason as human-readable. It provides context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, though the schema itself is already descriptive.

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 clearly states the tool aborts or cancels a Transport run, with specific use cases: user stops executor, cancels a run, or marks a dispatched run cancelled without pretending verification completed. This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings like transport_ack or transport_return.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use when the user stops an executor, cancels a run, or a dispatched run must be marked cancelled...' It also provides context for hosted/plugin mode with current_run. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though the sibling tools imply other transport actions.

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