interrupt_thread

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the word 'Request' signals the interrupt may be asynchronous rather than guaranteed, and 'History remains available for a follow-up' tells the agent the thread survives. It could say more about partial turn output, but this is solid added value.

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, zero waste, with the action and scope front-loaded ahead of the survival note.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the safety profile is covered by annotations and the history-persistence behavior is covered by the description. Gaps remain around commandId, error behavior when the thread is idle, and what happens to the interrupted turn's partial output.

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% on two parameters. The description explains nothing about either: threadId is only obliquely inferable from 'peer thread's', and commandId is completely unexplained (likely an idempotency/correlation key, but the agent must guess). With zero schema coverage the description should have compensated and does not.

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+scope: 'interrupt a peer thread's current turn in this project'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_thread_settled or send_message_to_thread. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The phrase 'current turn' implies the interrupt applies only to in-flight work, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over send_message_to_thread or set_thread_settled.

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