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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is lowered, but the description still earns credit for disclosing the specific blast radius: every in-progress run is canceled, and those runs cannot be resumed even after restart. That irreversibility detail is real information beyond the annotation. It stops short of saying whether an already-stopped automation errors or no-ops.

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, no filler, with the primary action first and the consequence/irreversibility second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 mutation with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope of destruction, and irreversibility — the essentials. Missing is the idempotency behavior (what happens on repeat calls) and any recovery path, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Automation ID (aut_xxx)'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the id, which is acceptable given the coverage, but earns only the baseline.

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 concrete verb (stop) on a concrete resource (automation) and adds the cascading effect on in-progress runs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close siblings pause-automation, cancel-automation-run, and delete-automation, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 mention of canceling in-progress runs implies the usage context (a hard halt rather than a soft pause), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or named alternative. With pause-automation and cancel-automation-run as siblings, an explicit comparison would materially help.

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