douyin_stop_campaign

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it explains that pending single operations will stop at a 'safety boundary', indicating a graceful shutdown rather than an abrupt kill. This is useful behavioral disclosure not present in the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, which correctly indicate a mutating but idempotent operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. It states the primary action first and then a key behavioral detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency, the description provides adequate operational context. It names the target activity and the graceful-stop behavior, and sibling names clarify the campaign lifecycle. However, it could have mentioned that the operation is safe to call even if already stopped, but that is already covered by the idempotentHint annotation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter `campaignId`, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It does not explain what `campaignId` represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 '停止' (stop) and resource '当前后台评论活动' (current background comment activity), clearly indicating the tool stops a campaign. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like douyin_start_campaign and douyin_resume_campaign, which are opposite operations.

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 implies usage when you need to halt a running campaign, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `start` or `resume`. There are no exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings, so it relies on the name and context to infer usage.

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