terminate_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is irreversible and stops the workflow on the orchestrator, which is critical behavioral info for a termination tool.

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 with three short paragraphs: purpose, notable behavior (irreversible), and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the action, irreversibility, and parameter details. It could mention that only running runs can be terminated, but overall is sufficiently complete.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter (identifier, run_id, impl) beyond what the input schema provides (schema description coverage is 0%). This adds significant semantic value.

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 verb 'Terminate' and resource 'running triggered run', with additional context 'Stops the workflow on the orchestrator'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_run or resume_run.

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 implies usage for stopping a running run and mentions irreversibility, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., not for already stopped runs).

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