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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful nuance that this is a *force* stop of a *running* job, but it is silent on what happens to partial results, logs, or artifacts, and whether the run can be resumed.

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, and the operation and scope appear immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and consequence detail.

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, idempotent mutation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum disambiguate the ID argument and state the effect on the run's outputs. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call or predict the aftermath.

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 0% across three parameters (botId, backtestId, revisionId), so the description carries the full burden. "By ID" is ambiguous about which of the three identifiers is required and whether any combination is needed, leaving the agent to guess despite zero required parameters.

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" names a specific verb (force-stop), a specific resource (backtest), and a scope qualifier (in-progress), which separates it from start_backtest and backtest_status. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

The word "in-progress" implicitly tells the agent this applies only to a running backtest, which is useful scoping. However, it never states what to do instead when the backtest is already finished or failed, and it does not point to backtest_status for checking state first.

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