avatar_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state in an open world. The description adds what specifically is cancelled (automatic movement) and that a resulting state is returned, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it does not explain reversibility, permissions, or what the returned state contains.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and carries no filler. Every clause earns its place by covering both the mutation and the read-back.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what 'resulting state' means (e.g. final position, movement status). It gestures at the return value but leaves its content unspecified, and it omits any note on preconditions or side effects for a destructive-flagged tool.

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 are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies it is invoked without arguments.

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 specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('automatic movement') plus a return side-effect ('read its resulting state'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling avatar_movement_status, which an agent would need to tell apart.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name that this is a stop command, and the description never mentions alternatives such as avatar_walk_to or avatar_movement_status, nor any precondition (e.g. that movement must be active).

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