job_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action and write nature, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., stopping an already stopped job), or required permissions. The behavior is clear but minimal.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, an inversion hint, and a short argument list. Every sentence is necessary and no waste. Information is front-loaded.

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 write operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it omits expected outcomes (e.g., success indication) and preconditions (e.g., job must be running), which may leave an agent uncertain about side effects or errors.

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 add meaning. It describes job_id as 'Veeam job id' and target as 'Veeam target name from config', which adds basic context beyond the schema types but lacks details like format, source, or default behavior.

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 clearly states the tool stops a running backup job, using a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('backup job'). It also identifies itself as a write operation with '[WRITE]' and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'job_start' by noting it is the inverse.

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 mentions 'Inverse: job_start', which provides some context for when to use this tool versus starting a job. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., job must be running), or how it relates to other siblings like job_disable.

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