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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'Work done so far is kept,' clarifying that stopping does not discard partial progress. It does not cover auth requirements or whether the call is idempotent, keeping it from a 5.

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 zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the post-condition. Appropriate sizing for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers when to use it and the key side effect (work retained). The remaining gap is the unexplained site_id, 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?

There is one required parameter, site_id, at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about which site/build is targeted or what format site_id takes. The only hint is the parameter name itself, which is insufficient compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('stop a WebTwizz build or edit that is running'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It is clear but does not reference any sibling tool, and there is no other stop-style sibling to be differentiated from, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to stop a WebTwizz build or edit.' That is clear usage context, but it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions or preconditions (e.g. only when a build is actually in progress).

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