stop_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: stopping prevents new runs but lets in-progress runs finish. It also reveals the HTTP endpoint (POST /automations/:id/stop), which is useful context. It does not mention idempotency, reversibility, or whether stopping an already-stopped automation errors, but for a simple stop action the core behavior is well 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and effect, with the endpoint appended as a useful reference. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, the scope (new vs in-progress runs), and the endpoint. The only missing context is what the response looks like and whether the operation is reversible, but those are minor for a simple stop action.

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 100%: the only parameter, id, is described as 'The automation id.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed for a single simple parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Stop'), a resource ('an automation'), and the precise effect ('prevents new runs; in-progress runs finish'). It also includes the underlying API endpoint, which disambiguates it from sibling tools like update_automation or delete_automation. This is a clear, non-tautological definition.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to stop an automation without killing in-progress runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavioral distinction from delete_automation and update_automation is clear enough from the stated semantics. A small gap is not saying 'use delete_automation to remove it permanently' or 'use update_automation to change settings instead'.

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