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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the run is preserved in history with all its collected data and can be reopened from the phone. This materially softens the 'destructive' read and is exactly the context annotations can't convey. It does not contradict 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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the recovery outcome appended. No filler, though the phrasing is conversational rather than precise.

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?

One required param, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, so the description only needs to convey side effects. It does that by explaining history preservation and reopenability, leaving only the response shape unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is a single parameter ('run') at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it as the run's id. The description adds nothing about parameter format or source, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not above 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 specific verb ('Stops') and resource ('a run') and anchors it to a familiar UI action ('as the Stop button does'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from pause_run, which is a close and semantically overlapping sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of pause_run, the obvious alternative for a temporary halt. The Stop-button analogy implies intent but leaves the pause-versus-stop decision to inference.

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