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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, including the expected return messages, the instruction to report the edit as stopped, and the need to poll status. There is no contradiction with the 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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE' to immediately signal caution. It follows a logical flow covering action, usage condition, post-action guidance, return value, and follow-up steps, with every sentence earning its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage constraints, expected outcomes, and subsequent actions. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 provides a complete description of the single parameter (session_key) at 100% coverage, so the description itself adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the parameter semantics.

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 states that the tool stops a currently running AI edit, using the specific verb 'stops' and a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on cancellation, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks to stop/cancel the active edit.' It also instructs not to claim completion and directs polling status tools afterward, offering clear guidance on when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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