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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the user-visible impact (viewers lose the live broadcast) and the required confirmation step, which annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the impact/caution, and the REST endpoint mapping. The critical caution is front-loaded before the API metadata.

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, no-output-schema tool with safety annotations already present, the description covers operation, impact, and the confirmation requirement. It leaves unstated what state the stream enters after stopping (ended vs. resumable) or how it relates to delete_stream, which are minor but real gaps.

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?

Only one parameter ('stream', a Stream UUID) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating the path template /streams/{stream}/stop, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema carries the load.

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 (stop) plus resource (running stream) and adds the state qualifier 'running,' which separates it from start_stream. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the adjacent delete_stream sibling, so an agent must infer that stopping is not deletion, but the operation itself is 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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: this interrupts a live broadcast for viewers, and the agent should confirm with the user before stopping a live stream. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., delete_stream) or stating when not to call it, but the pre-condition context is genuinely actionable.

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