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

The description goes well past the annotations by disclosing the state-dependent effects: a queued question is withdrawn, a running answer stops in about a second while keeping partial output, and a backtest it started is NOT stopped. It also discloses the POLYRANK_API_KEY requirement, which the annotations do not convey. These details are consistent with the declared non-destructive, idempotent profile.

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 clauses, each carrying distinct information (queued case, running case, backtest exemption), followed by the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant and the core action is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 single-parameter stop operation with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: the effect on each possible state, the side effect that is deliberately not applied, and the credential needed. The only unresolved item is the exact meaning of `id`, which is a narrow gap.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter's meaning. 'In one of your chats' implies the single `id` is a chat identifier, but that is never stated outright, so an agent could reasonably wonder whether it is a chat id or a message id. The hint narrows the domain but stops short of full compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource and scope: 'Stop the Lab assistant answering in one of your chats.' That distinguishes it immediately from the sibling lab tools polyrank_lab_ask, polyrank_lab_reply, and polyrank_lab_get_chat, which all concern starting or reading a chat rather than halting one.

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 context for calling it is unambiguous: an agent uses this when an answer in a chat should be halted, and the queue/running/backtest breakdown tells the agent what outcome to expect depending on state. It never names an alternative or an explicit exclusion, but no sibling offers a competing way to stop an answer, so the gap is minor.

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