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

Goes well beyond the annotations: disk is preserved, the stop persists across calls/visits, the briq is not billed while stopped, the call blocks up to 30 s until it lands, and an intermediate state (stopping/starting/destroying) signals it is still in flight. The idempotency note adds concrete meaning to idempotentHint by explaining it waits on the same move rather than launching another.

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, then packs contrast, billing, return timing, and retry safety into a few tight sentences. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what the return means (lands vs. still-in-transit state), plus timeout expectations. For a single-parameter, non-destructive stop operation, nothing an agent needs in order 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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage — the schema only supplies a regex pattern, not meaning. The description never clarifies whether 'briq' is an ID, name, or handle (the bq_ pattern implies an ID), so it adds little beyond the self-explanatory parameter name.

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 and resource ('Stop a briq') and immediately distinguishes it from the sleep/idle behavior and from the briq_start counterpart. An agent can tell it apart from briq_destroy and briq_set_sleep without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives the negative case: 'To let it sleep and wake on use instead, do nothing' — so the agent knows when NOT to call it. It also references briq_start as the way back. It stops short of explicitly routing to briq_destroy for teardown, which would have made it a 5.

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