scratchjr_stop_project

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

The description discloses the main behaviors: stopping scripts and optionally resetting characters. It adds this context to the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but it does not explain side effects such as whether the project remains open or whether any project data is changed.

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 one short sentence, front-loads the primary action, and then adds the optional parameter context. No words are wasted.

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 single-boolean-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter effect. It could be slightly more explicit about the scope ('all scripts in the current project') but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for the 'reset' parameter. It clearly links 'reset' to resetting characters to their starting positions, which is meaningful beyond the bare schema default of false.

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 clear action ('Stop scripts') and a distinct optional behavior ('reset characters to their starting positions'), which differentiates it from siblings like scratchjr_run_project and scratchjr_click_character. The resource scope is implied by the project name and the action is concrete.

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 does not state when to use this tool or compare it with alternatives such as scratchjr_run_project or scratchjr_status. It gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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