openclaw_sessions_abort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is destructive and interrupts running work, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, authentication requirements, or any return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 main description is two concise sentences that state the purpose and key behavioral note. The parameter descriptions are thorough but within the schema. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 simple action tool (abort with id and optional instance), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and destructiveness. However, it omits what the tool returns on success or failure, and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be in-flight). Given low complexity, these gaps are minor.

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%, and the description for the 'id' parameter adds significant context: it explains that most session methods accept UUIDs but some accept composite keys, and provides a fallback strategy ('try UUID first, if rejected with NOT_FOUND retry with key from openclaw_sessions_list'). The 'instance' parameter description also adds routing context. This goes well beyond the schema's basic type and required fields.

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 its purpose: 'Abort the in-flight agent turn for a session (cancels the current LLM call / tool loop).' The verb 'Abort' and resource 'in-flight agent turn for a session' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like sessions_reset (which resets state) and sessions_delete (which removes sessions).

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 says 'Destructive — interrupts running work,' implying use when stopping a running turn is needed. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives like sessions_reset or sessions_delete. The guidance is present but minimal.

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