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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it terminates the whole process tree the exec started, calling it on an already-finished exec is a benign no-op answered as-is (reinforcing idempotentHint), and the output survives in the briq. It does not say how the caller learns the result or whether the call blocks, 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. 'One already finished is answered as it is' is slightly awkward phrasing that costs a little clarity.

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?

With destructiveHint and idempotentHint already declared and no output schema, the description covers the key facts (process-tree kill, no-op on finished execs, output retained). What remains missing is the response shape/confirmation and whether a running stop is synchronous, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 only 50% — the 'briq' parameter has no description at all — and the description never mentions either parameter. Only indirectly does 'started with briq_exec async' hint that 'exec' identifies the target, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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) plus a precisely scoped resource: a command started with briq_exec in async mode and every process it spawned. The 'started with briq_exec async' qualifier implicitly separates it from briq_stop and briq_destroy, though neither sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'started with briq_exec async' — an agent can infer it should be called on async execs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to briq_stop, briq_destroy, or briq_exec_result as alternatives.

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