stop_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that queued tasks are cancelled and active agents interrupted, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, partial failures, or what happens when both agents and group_id are supplied.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words; the action is front-loaded and the parameter note follows directly.

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 destructive batch operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits batch/group semantics, conflict behavior, and failure handling that an agent would need to invoke it safely.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the two parameters. It names both and indicates an either/or relationship, which adds some meaning, but it does not explain that agents is an array of IDs, what group_id represents, or how the two interact.

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 specific verbs ('cancel', 'interrupt') and resources ('queued tasks', 'agents'), and the plural/group framing distinguishes it from a single-agent stop. It does not explicitly name the sibling stop_agent, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only says to supply 'agents or group_id'; that is parameter mechanics, not guidance on when to use this tool instead of stop_agent or other alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers.

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