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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the dashboard is flipped to 'interrupted', the streamed-so-far reply is preserved rather than discarded, and stopping with no active generation is a successful no-op. Return value is not described, but that is a minor gap for a mutation 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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, followed by the permission requirement and the state/retention semantics. Every sentence earns its place with 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, permission, resulting state, data retention, and no-op behavior well. The remaining gaps are parameter meaning (especially the undescribed artifactId) and any indication of what the call returns.

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 only 50%: partial_text is documented in the schema, but artifactId carries no description at all. The tool description never mentions either parameter, so it does not clarify what artifactId identifies (the dashboard, the message, or the generation turn) nor when to supply partial_text, leaving the schema to carry a burden it only half meets.

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 Duvo Pulse generation turn.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like stopRun, stopClarityProcessSnapshot, and stopClarityArtifactChatConversation because the target (a Pulse generation turn) is named explicitly.

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 a clear precondition ('Requires edit access to the dashboard') and an implicit trigger condition (an in-flight generation turn), plus the degenerate case where stopping nothing is a successful no-op. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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