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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explaining the AI is stopped. It adds valuable extra context beyond annotations: the visitor is notified a person joined (a visible side effect) and the Standard plan requirement. It stops short of disclosing what happens to in-flight AI processing or the response shape.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the visitor-side effect, the workflow sequence, and the plan gate. No filler; every sentence carries actionable content.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the user-visible side effect, the follow-up workflow, and the eligibility constraint. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

A single required session_id with 100% schema description coverage pointing to list_active_sessions, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource and actor switch: stop the AI answering a conversation so a human can reply. It clearly distinguishes itself from workflow siblings like send_agent_reply and release_conversation by describing its distinct role.

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?

Explicit sequencing: use send_agent_reply afterwards and release_conversation when done, plus an eligibility gate (Standard plan or higher). The when-to-use and follow-on alternatives are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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