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 substantial context beyond them: it reads the sandbox id from the process row, kills the sandbox, flips the process back to `review`, and clears the sandbox marker so late webhooks from the killed run are dropped as stale. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and then enumerates side effects in order. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure slightly reduces scannability compared to a tighter split of action vs. effects.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the observable consequences and the webhook-staleness rationale. It omits preconditions (e.g., required process state or permissions on the sandbox) and what happens if the snapshot is no longer in flight, which would complete the picture.

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 (process_id, kind) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values for kind. The description references 'the selected kind' and the process row but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 with scope: 'Stop an in-flight snapshot generation for the selected kind.' An agent can distinguish this from generateClarityProcessSnapshot, getClarityProcessSnapshot, promoteClarityProcessSnapshot, and revertClarityProcessSnapshot without inspecting schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by 'in-flight' snapshots, so the agent knows this applies only to running generations. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., revert vs. stop vs. postprocess) and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving routing against the many sibling snapshot tools to inference.

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