duddy_abort_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not say what aborting actually does: whether in-flight steps are stopped, whether partial work is rolled back or left in place, whether the plan can be resumed, or whether the operation is idempotent. The only behavioral cue is the urgency of 'call immediately,' which is not about side effects.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and its condition, with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what state the plan ends in, what the call returns, or why it should pick this over duddy_rollback_plan.

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 would need to compensate, yet it never mentions either parameter. 'Flow' weakly implies plan_id targets the thing to abort, but the optional 'reason' field and the identifier format are entirely unexplained in both structured fields and prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: abort a plan that has not completed or has failed ('中止一个尚未完成或已失败的流程'). It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like duddy_plan_status, but it does not clarify how it differs from duddy_rollback_plan, which is the closest alternative.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: the plan is incomplete or failed, and the user says 'stop', in which case it should be called immediately. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer duddy_rollback_plan to undo a completed plan's effects), so no exclusions or explicit alternatives are given.

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