Abort a running delegated session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds a useful nuance—that calling it on an idle session is safe—which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose whether aborting is irreversible, whether a running computation is killed, or what happens to partial results.

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, no filler, and the core action is stated first. The safety note is useful and 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?

For a one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose and a safe-call condition. It could be slightly richer by explaining the post-abort state of the session, but an agent can invoke this tool correctly with what is provided.

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%, and the single parameter session_id is already fully documented as the session id returned by create_session. The tool description adds no further parameter guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') with a clear resource ('a long-running or unwanted delegated task'), and the title names the action and object. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_session and get_session.

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 gives clear signals about when to use it: for long-running or unwanted delegated tasks. It also provides a useful safety condition ('Safe to call when the session is already idle'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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