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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the concrete consequences: held coins are returned and partial work is discarded. It adds no auth or rate-limit context, but the effect disclosure is genuinely useful.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by consequences. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcomes (coins returned, work discarded) and is consistent with the annotations. Only a note on post-cancellation state or error cases 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% with a single required breakdown_id, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description restates the applicable state but adds no format, lookup, or identifier guidance beyond the schema.

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 (stop/cancel) and resource (breakdown) plus the applicable states (queued or running), which distinguishes it from start_breakdown and get_breakdown. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'queued or running' gives an implied precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_breakdown to inspect first), and no warning about calling it on already-completed breakdowns.

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