Abort Kimi Session

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the abort interrupts in-flight delegated work, changes session state, persists as aborted for durable jobs, returns the sessionId and confirmation, and may keep history available. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context a destructiveHint alone cannot convey.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by addressing the destructive consequences, persistence behavior, return value, and post-abort history. No filler or repetition of structured metadata.

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 tool with rich schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers when to act, what will happen, what is returned, and what may remain. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema already covers 100% of the single parameter with a rich description, so the baseline applies. The tool description reinforces the need to confirm the intended session but does not add new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 precise action ('Abort an owned Kimi session'), the target resource, and the condition for use ('that should no longer continue running'), which sets it apart from sibling tools like kimi_delegate_task or kimi_continue_task. The opening sentence makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context: abort only after confirming the intended session, and only for work that should no longer continue. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit when-not/alternative routing.

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