Kill flow run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: subflow runs are also terminated, credits/downstream actions are at stake, and outcomes must not be auto-resubmitted. It stops short of saying whether the kill is reversible or what happens to an already-finished run.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the confirmation prerequisite and retry caution. Efficient, though the second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded ('this exact account operation').

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 7-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive scope, the confirmation gate and the non-idempotent retry hazard, which are the key things an agent needs. Remaining gaps (post-kill state, behavior on an already-terminated run) 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (run_id, account, confirm, payload, payload_file, user_id, project_id) is already documented in the schema. The description only obliquely gestures at the account/confirm semantics via 'this exact account operation' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (kill) and resource (a flow run) and adds meaningful scope — 'and all its subflow runs' — which distinguishes it from benign siblings like get_run_details or cancel_session. An agent can identify this as the destructive termination tool without opening the schema.

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 states a prerequisite ('Explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation') and a retry caution ('never resubmit unknown outcomes automatically'), which tells the agent how to invoke it safely. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings.

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