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

The description discloses a specific behavioral nuance beyond annotations: 'Runs already waiting for a button stay waiting but nothing new starts.' This informs the agent that the operation does not cancel pending runs, only prevents new ones. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so this added detail is valuable and non-contradictory.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by a key behavioral detail. There is no redundancy or fluff, and every word 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 simple mutation tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (stopping an automation and its effect on pending runs). The optional parameter is well-documented in the schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, though it could have mentioned the result or success indication, but that is minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (id has no description, workspaceId has a detailed one). The tool description adds no parameter information. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not. The id parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent gets no additional meaning about the parameters from the description.

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 the action ('Stop an automation') with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('nothing new starts') that separates it from enable_automation and other sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous and easily distinguishable.

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 description implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. The sibling list includes enable_automation, and the opposite semantics are clear, but there is no direct guidance like 'Use this to stop an automation; to start one, use enable_automation.' Thus, usage is implied rather than explicit.

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