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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that 'the live release keeps serving,' which is real behavioral context for a cancellation tool. However, it omits what happens to the stopped build (is it discarded? re-runnable?), permission requirements, and the release id format.

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. The primary action is front-loaded, and the scope qualifier and the live-release reassurance follow immediately.

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-ish cancellation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one schema-undocumented parameter, the description covers the core semantics but stops short of return behavior, error conditions, and the fate of the cancelled build.

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 67%; env and project are already described in the schema. The description adds meaning to the undocumented 'release' parameter by clarifying it refers to a release id and is alternative to targeting the latest build. It still gives no format or example for that id.

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 ('a build that is still running'), scoped precisely as the latest in the environment or a given release id. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rollback, promote, and deploy.status, which do not cancel running builds.

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 parenthetical scopes which build is targeted and implicitly signals the condition ('still running'), but it never names alternatives or exclusions — e.g., no guidance on when to prefer rollback or deploy.status instead. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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