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

While the annotations provide the critical `destructiveHint: true`, the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that 'Work done so far is kept.' This is a crucial piece of information that mitigates the agent's fear of data loss.

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 definition is extremely concise, using only two sentences. Every phrase is dedicated to describing the tool's function, context, or behavior without unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the low schema coverage, the description provides all necessary operational context. It informs the agent of the action, the state of the target, and the outcome of the action before invocation.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description carries the full weight. Although it doesn't explicitly define `site_id` semantically, as the single required parameter, the context implies it must be the identifier of the build/edit being targeted.

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 defines the action ('stop a WebTwizz build or edit') and the context in which it should be used (when something is running). It clearly distinguishes this destructive action from site management tools.

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?

It provides a clear condition for usage: 'when the user wants to stop a WebTwizz build or edit that is running.' This effectively guides the agent on the correct operational state for invoking the tool.

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