Stop Flow

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond restating the mutation. It does not say whether in-flight executions are terminated or allowed to finish, whether flow state/version is preserved, or whether the flow can be restarted with start_flow afterwards.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and keying parameter appear immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 mutation with no output schema and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the definition is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is behavioral: an agent cannot tell from this text whether stopping interrupts running component executions or how to resume.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's 'by ID' phrasing adds nothing new. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does all the parameter work.

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-plus-resource ('Stop a running Appmixer flow') and the keying parameter ('by ID'), which clearly separates it from siblings like start_flow, delete_flow, and get_flow_status. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 word 'running' implies the flow must currently be executing, which is the only usage condition conveyed. There is no explicit when-to-use versus start_flow/delete_flow guidance, no statement about what happens if the flow is already stopped, and no note on required permissions.

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