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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains exactly what happens: the rule ends, suggestions disappear from unreviewed rows, and reviewed rows keep their confirmed values. That closely matches the rubric's credit for saying what gets destroyed and what stays intact. The removal is scoped to unreviewed suggestions and explicitly does not change reviewed rows, so it does not contradict destructiveHint=false.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact, with the purpose first and effects close behind. However, the final 'Effects' sentence largely repeats the first two sentences, and 'Ending never changes a reviewed row' repeats the earlier reviewed-row guarantee.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and side effects well. It does not describe the response, error cases, or behavior on an already-ended rule, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about why a rule might end, which indirectly informs the reason field, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. This fits the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a standing rule.' It also clarifies the effect on suggestions and reviewed rows, clearly separating ending a rule from adding one. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as purch_add_rule, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It states clear triggers: end a rule when the person says it no longer holds, or when it was recorded wrong. It also points toward adding the correct rule in the mistaken-record case. It does not explicitly name the sibling add/get/list tools or give broader exclusions.

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