session_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation (destructive), that there is no undo token, and that a stopped session must be re-issued. This adds significant context beyond what would be in annotations, though it does not discuss edge cases like stopping an already stopped session.

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 concise, with no extraneous words. It follows a clear structure: purpose line, behavioral note, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, behavioral traits, and parameter meanings. It lacks detail on error handling or idempotency, but is still fairly complete for a stop operation.

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% for both parameters. The description adds meaning: session_id is described as 'Veeam session id (see session_list)' and target as 'Veeam target name from config.' This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Stop a running session (cancels the underlying operation).' It uses a specific verb (stop) and resource (session), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like session_list and session_get.

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 includes '[WRITE]' indicating this is a write operation, and explicitly warns that there is 'No undo token — a stopped session must be re-issued via the originating job/restore.' This provides context on when to use it (to stop a running session) and when not to (if undo is needed), though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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