openclaw_chat_abort

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is destructive by cancelling a running LLM call. It also mentions the wire format requires sessionKey, adding operational transparency. However, it does not detail what happens if no turn is in-flight.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides key operational details. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core action and destructive nature. However, it lacks context on return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., session must exist and have an in-flight turn), making it only adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well-described. The description reinforces the need for sessionKey but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool aborts an in-flight chat turn for a session, using the verb 'abort' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_sessions_abort by focusing on the chat turn rather than the entire 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 implies usage when an in-flight chat turn needs to be cancelled but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like openclaw_sessions_abort.

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