force_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It implies a state-changing kill of a live process but says nothing about irreversibility, unsaved state loss, whether a non-running package errors, or permission requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the operation it performs, but there is no wasted structure.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, an agent could call this correctly using the schema alone, but the description omits device-scoping context and any failure behavior. It is adequate but clearly thin relative to the operation's destructive nature.

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 coverage is 50%: the device parameter is documented in the schema (including the omit-when-single-device rule) while package has none. The description partially compensates by stating the app is identified 'by package name', giving the format of the required parameter, but adds nothing about device targeting.

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 (force-stop) and resource (running app identified by package name), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent launch_app sibling or clarify how it relates to list_packages, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent must infer that this is the counterpart to launch_app and that it applies only to currently running apps, with nothing in the text confirming that.

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