Stop streaming prices

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core effect (dropping standing subscriptions), the all-or-none behavior when scripCodes is omitted, and the consequence of letting the connection go idle. This goes beyond the schema and gives an agent useful side-effect awareness. It does not mention partial-drop behavior or permissions, but for a simple tool the important behavior is 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the conditional behavior. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the title or schema. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the main action and the important edge case of omitting scripCodes. It also adds the connection-idle consequence, which is relevant context for an agent. Missing details such as return value or connection state after partial drops are minor and do not undermine the ability to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully documents scripCodes with the same 'Omit to unsubscribe everything' note, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces this and adds the connection-idle context, which is helpful but not essential to understanding the parameter itself. There is no meaningful semantic addition beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Drop standing price subscriptions.' This clearly communicates the tool's action and scope, and the title 'Stop streaming prices' reinforces it. It distinguishes itself from siblings like stream_subscribe by the verb 'drop,' though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The purpose 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 description implies the tool is for ending price subscriptions, especially given the sibling stream_subscribe, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. The instruction 'Omit scripCodes to drop all of them' is about parameter behavior, not about choosing between tools. This is adequate but relies on context.

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