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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the permission model (cross-member stopping is allowed) and that in-progress work is interrupted — context an agent could not infer from the annotations alone. It stops short of describing the resulting task state or whether the interrupted work is recoverable.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states the action and effect, the second handles scope and permissions. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition plus rich schema descriptions and destructive/idempotent annotations cover what an agent needs to invoke it. The only gap is post-call behavior — what state the task ends in and whether it can be resumed — which the description leaves unstated.

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 100%: task_id is documented as coming from list_tasks and workspace_id from whoami, including that it is optional and auto-resolved. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 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 ('Stop') and resource ('the agent working on a running task') with an explicit effect ('interrupting the work in progress'). It is clearly the inverse of start_task, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 second sentence scopes usage ('any task in the workspace, wherever it started') and permissions ('any member may stop any task, a teammate's included'), which is helpful. However, it never says when NOT to use it — e.g., what happens if the task is not running, or whether to check get_task first — and no alternative tool is named.

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