Stop Live

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that a final recording pass runs and the project then finishes, which tells the agent this is a terminal, finalizing operation rather than an instantaneous halt.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, and the effect of the call is front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Every sentence 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 one-parameter terminal tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its aftermath, and the project end state, while annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. The only real gap is the unaddressed projectId semantics.

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 single projectId parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all, so neither source explains which project is being stopped or what identifier format is expected. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated but does not.

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?

Specific verb (Stop) plus resource (watching a live stream) with a clear scope statement. It distinguishes itself adequately from siblings like list_projects or project_status, though it does not name those siblings explicitly or explain its relationship to 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?

"Stop watching a live stream" implies the context in which the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., how this differs from project_status or canceling via another tool) and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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