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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: stopping can interrupt in-flight work and leave partial changes behind, and the call requires computer:write OAuth plus possible local owner approval. Those are consequences and preconditions an agent cannot derive from the annotation flags alone.

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 compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, destructive consequence plus exclusion, and authorization prerequisites. The identifying scope is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a destructive, single-parameter stop operation with full annotation coverage, the definition covers scope, side effects, exclusions, and auth. The only gap is that with no output schema, it does not indicate what the call returns (e.g., confirmation or final job state) or how to check the outcome afterward.

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 single parameter id is described at 100% coverage in the schema itself, including the useful warning that it is not a device PIN. The description adds no further syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 and resource ('Stop one background job') and constrains scope to jobs created by exza_start_background_job. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from interactive-process sessions, so an agent can tell it apart from exza_stop_interactive_process without reading either 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?

Gives both sides of the decision: use it for background jobs spawned by exza_start_background_job, and do not use it for interactive exza_start_interactive_process sessions. It also names the prerequisite (account-bound computer:write OAuth plus any prompted local owner approval), so the agent knows the call may need authorization before it can succeed.

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