vela_terminate_workflow

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavior that confirm must be true to execute, and labels the operation as dangerous, providing additional context beyond annotations.

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 very short, which is efficient for a simple tool. It front-loads the key danger warning and confirm requirement. Could be slightly more structured but contains no unnecessary 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 termination tool with a destructive hint, the description covers the core behavior and safety requirement. However, it does not describe return values or post-execution state changes, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema already contains descriptions for all parameters (e.g., '工作流执行记录名' for record). The tool description reiterates the importance of confirm but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the action ('terminate'), resource ('workflow'), and highlights that it is a dangerous operation requiring confirm=true. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vela_resume_workflow.

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 explicitly states the operation is dangerous and requires confirm=true, implying caution. However, it does not mention alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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