Abort Actor run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating both the precondition ('still in progress') and the key side effect ('Items already collected are kept'). It doesn't cover every edge case such as idempotence or the terminal run status, but the most decision-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the critical side effect about preserving collected items is stated immediately.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, precondition, and consequence. It could be more complete by noting what happens when the run is not in progress or whether the abort is final, but those are minor gaps for this simple operation.

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 provides only a required string runId with no description, and the description doesn't explicitly define runId. However, the tool name and the phrase 'a run' make it inferable that runId identifies the run to abort, so the parameter is usable but not directly enriched.

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') and resource ('a run that is still in progress'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get-actor-run and from the opposite operation resurrect-actor-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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a run is in progress and needs to be stopped. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'still in progress' precondition provides enough context to avoid most misuse.

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