Argocd Terminate Operation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only the scoping qualifier 'running', and says nothing about what happens when no operation is running, permissions required, or error behavior. Adequate given annotations, but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the usage trigger follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 3-parameter mutation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what it does and when to use it. The only gap is behavior when no operation is running, which is a minor omission given the annotations and output schema present.

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 every parameter is documented in-schema (including the 404/403 semantics of project and the ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already provided, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Terminate the running sync operation.' An agent can tell it apart from argocd_get_operation and argocd_wait_for_operation by the verb alone, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use to unstick a sync hanging in Running.' That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., wait_for_operation) or stating when not to use it.

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