kill_attempt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Request cancellation" hints that cancellation may be asynchronous rather than immediate, but the description does not disclose permissions, whether cancellation is graceful or forced, reversibility, or what the caller should expect after invoking it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its terseness contributes to the gaps in behavioral guidance rather than making it maximally informative.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain permissions, side effects, asynchronous behavior, or expected response. For an attempt-cancellation operation, those omissions leave the agent without important operational context.

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 the schema itself fully documents attempt_id and reason. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific action ("Request cancellation") and target ("a running attempt"), which is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools such as retry_attempt or explain how it relates to them.

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 attempt" gives implied usage context: this tool applies only to attempts that are still running. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of retry_attempt as an alternative, and no prerequisites or conditions beyond that implied scope.

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