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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which signal this is a mutation that destroys data. The description aligns with these traits by saying 'stop and remove,' but it adds no extra behavioral context such as irreversibility, required permissions, or consequences beyond what annotations already convey. With annotations covering the primary behavioral flags, the description provides minimal additional value.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more precise by explicitly using 'delete' instead of 'stop and remove.' Still, it is efficient and earns its place.

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 simple delete tool with one well-documented parameter and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description is largely complete. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., whether deleting a nonexistent routine errors), but these are not critical for basic usage. Overall, it meets the needs of an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single required parameter, including its format ('routine_<uuid>') and meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('stop and remove') and names the resource ('Routine'), which clearly identifies the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_routine' and 'update_routine' by implying deletion, though 'delete' is not explicitly used. The phrasing is slightly indirect but still unambiguous.

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 description states the tool is for stopping and removing a Routine, giving a clear general use case. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives (e.g., whether updating is preferred over deletion in certain contexts). The usage is implied but not detailed.

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