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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real semantic context beyond them: stopping does not flatten the account, an open position keeps its stop and target, and resting orders can still fill. That tells the agent what state persists after the call, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the safety note, then the follow-up guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information; the only near-redundancy is "Safe to call twice" against idempotentHint.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the effect on points, idempotency, post-call state, and the escalation path to autopilot_action. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the autopilot_id format or where to obtain it, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is the minimum.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Stop an autopilot") and immediately defines the consequence: it stops analysing and stops spending points. It also names the counterpart tool start_autopilot, so the agent can distinguish the pair without inspecting 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 an explicit trigger ("when the user wants it to stop analysing") plus an explicit alternative path ("use autopilot_action close / cancel_order first if the user wants to be flat"). It also states the inverse tool for restarting, covering when and when-not to use this tool.

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