stop_simulation

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

Annotations already signal destructiveness, and the description adds useful behavioral context: soft mode stops cleanly and saves results, while hard mode terminates immediately. The confirmation protocol is also disclosed, though the description could be more explicit about what hard mode may destroy or lose.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, mode semantics, and the confirmation workflow. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool without an output schema, the description covers the key invocation requirements: target simulation, mode choice, and confirmation behavior. It does not detail error cases or the full outcome of hard mode, but the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning for the mode and confirm parameters: soft vs hard behavior and the safe confirmation sequence. simulation_id is not elaborated, but its role as the target identifier is obvious from the schema and tool name.

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 opens with 'Stop a running simulation,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like launch_simulation and wait_for_simulation by focusing on termination.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool and provides a concrete two-step confirmation workflow: call with confirm=false, show the summary, then use confirm=true only after user agreement. It recommends soft mode as the default, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exactly when hard mode is appropriate.

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