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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The word "Force-stop" adds that termination is abrupt rather than graceful, but the description never says whether partial results/artifacts survive, whether in-flight orders are cancelled, or what the caller gets back.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word (force, in-progress, by ID) carries information.

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, three-parameter operation with no output schema and no required parameters, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks the identification rules and the consequences of the stop, which are exactly what a mutation tool needs to disclose.

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 0% across three parameters, and the description only clarifies that a backtest "ID" is needed. It does not explain what botId or revisionId are for, nor why all three parameters are optional — leaving the agent unsure whether backtestId alone is sufficient.

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?

"Force-stop an in-progress backtest by ID" gives a specific verb (force-stop), a specific resource (backtest), and the qualifier that only running backtests apply. It is naturally distinct from start_backtest and stop_deployment, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

"In-progress" implicitly scopes usage to actively running backtests, which is useful. But there is no guidance on when to stop vs. let it finish, no mention of backtest_status or list_backtests for discovering the ID, and no prerequisites stated.

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