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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that partial work is preserved and scored, the terminal status ('cancelled'), the 409 failure mode for completed runs, and both the required token scope (WRITE) and roles (EDITOR/ADMIN/OWNER). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then error and auth constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or schema.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers effect, terminal state, error condition, and auth prerequisites. It stops short of describing the response payload or idempotency on repeat calls, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single crawlId parameter is structurally documented (albeit thinly as 'Path parameter crawlId.'). The description adds no format, ID-source, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Stop an in-flight crawl run') with an explicit scope qualifier ('in-flight') that cleanly separates it from siblings like enqueue_crawl and recrawl_pages. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 'in-flight' qualifier and the 409-on-already-finished condition tell the agent exactly when this call will succeed versus fail, which is effectively a when-to-use guard. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling is a plausible substitute for stopping a run.

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