track_stop

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (what it saw, what it moved, what failed) — valuable given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about state preconditions, idempotency, or what happens if tracking is not active, so the mutation behavior is only partially covered.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the return payload enumerated after it. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient: the description substitutes for the missing return schema by naming the summary contents. The remaining gap is precondition/error behavior when no tracking session is active.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No parameter-related confusion is possible.

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?

"Stop following" is a specific verb+topic that clearly inverts the sibling track_start, so an agent can place it without ambiguity. It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart tool or the object being tracked (camera? subject?), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb "stop" makes it obvious this terminates an active tracking session, but there is no statement of when to call it, whether it errors if no session is running, or what to use instead for status checks (track_status exists).

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