Cancel a run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the abort action and the cleanup side effect, but does not mention whether cancellation is reversible, what happens if the run is already finished, or any error conditions. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 a single, concise sentence with two clear clauses. Every word adds value (abort action, target state, cleanup side effect), with no redundant or vague wording.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary action and a key side effect. It is adequate but could be more complete by addressing edge cases (e.g., run already completed or nonexistent) or what the return value indicates.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter (runId) with a description, and the tool's description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning. The schema's 'The runId of the run' is minimal, and the description does not elaborate on how to obtain or format the ID, so value added is neutral.

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 ('Aborts') and resource ('a running opencode run'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like opencode_wait or opencode_status. It also mentions a secondary action (cleans up temporary session), further clarifying its role.

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 phrase 'running opencode run' provides clear context for when to use this tool (only on active runs). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is strongly implied and unambiguous.

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