dsh_interrupt

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: it is a cancellation of the current turn, it maps to the native session/cancel path, and the session survives intact and is immediately reusable. It does not say what happens to partial output or whether anything is lost, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the clarifying mechanism in parentheses and the non-destructive guarantee second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter mutation-style control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and the critical after-state. The remaining gap is return behavior and what happens to in-flight partial results, which the agent might want to know.

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 single conversation_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where its value comes from (dsh_start or dsh_list). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

It states a specific verb and resource: interrupting the currently running turn of a session. It also identifies the underlying mechanism (ACP native session/cancel, the same path as pressing stop), which makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like dsh_interject or dsh_takeover.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool — when the session has a turn in progress that should be stopped — and states the post-condition that new tasks can be dispatched immediately. It does not, however, explicitly contrast this with dsh_interject or dsh_takeover, so the choice among interruption-style siblings still requires inference.

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