itasca_interrupt_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it discloses the asynchronous acceptance semantics ('Returns as soon as the request is accepted; it does not wait'), the error condition for terminal tasks, and that engine state is preserved rather than torn down. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the action and the async caveat in the first two lines, then layers follow-up, exclusions, and state-preservation notes. No sentence restates the name or title, and each adds a distinct operational fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description instead covers the things the schema cannot: async semantics, error states, state preservation, and the correct next tool. For a single-parameter mutation tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents that task_id comes from itasca_execute_task or itasca_list_tasks, so the description is largely redundant here. Its slight value-add is the recovery hint for an unknown id, but that is guidance rather than added meaning about the parameter itself. 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 ('Request interruption') and resource ('Itasca task') with clear scope: 'pending or running'. An agent can distinguish it from itasca_check_task_status and itasca_execute_task 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?

Names the follow-up tool (itasca_check_task_status) to confirm the stop, the recovery path (itasca_list_tasks) for an unknown task_id, and the exclusion ('Tasks already completed, failed or interrupted return an error'). When-to-use and when-not are both explicit.

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