job_stop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data; the "[WRITE]" tag merely restates it. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that dry_run previews without stopping — but says nothing about permissions, whether the stop is graceful, or reversibility.

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 operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the sibling relation and the preview hint; the Args block is compact and nothing is wasted.

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, non-idempotent write with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and the dry-run path. It could note prerequisites (job must be running) or that a job_id from job_list is required, but nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents all three parameters, including the non-obvious target ("from config") and the effect of dry_run. Descriptions are terse ("Veeam job id") but sufficient to call correctly.

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 precise verb and resource ("Stop a running backup job") and immediately names the inverse sibling (job_start), so an agent can place it against job_start/job_retry/job_disable without opening any schema.

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 inverse relationship with job_start gives clear positioning, and "Pass dry_run=True to preview" tells the agent how to use it safely. There are no explicit when-not conditions (e.g. vs job_disable or job_retry), so it stops short of a 5.

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