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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the required authorization ('Needs the write scope'), which is not derivable from the structured fields; it still omits whether the stop is reversible/idempotent and what happens to partial output.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the permission prerequisite second. Every clause earns 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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that already carry the destructive/read-only profile, the description covers purpose and the auth requirement adequately. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and the state of a stopped job's artifacts.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id' fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb (stop) and resource (job), and the qualifier 'running' scopes it to active jobs, which implicitly separates it from jobs_run and jobs_create. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for halting an in-progress job. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of what happens if the job has already finished, and no reference to related siblings such as jobs_continue or jobs_get.

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