pfc_interrupt_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only adds 'graceful' to indicate cooperative shutdown but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it can be called multiple times, if it blocks, or error behavior). The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 short sentence, which is front-loaded but minimal. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), the description lacks context about when the task must be running or the outcome if already stopped. The output schema exists, so return description is not required, but usage context 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 description coverage is 100% (task_id is described as 'Task ID returned by pfc_execute_task'). The tool description adds no further parameter guidance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 clearly identifies the action ('request graceful interruption') and the resource ('running PFC task'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pfc_execute_task (which starts tasks) and pfc_check_task_status (which checks status). However, the term 'graceful' is ambiguous and not elaborated upon.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., task must be running), no exclusions (e.g., cannot interrupt completed tasks), and no mention of expected preconditions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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