Stop the simulation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior for the wait_s > 0 case (blocking until idle and mirroring cm_wait_end's return), but does not say what is discarded or what happens when no simulation is running.

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, the primary action front-loaded and the conditional behavior second. No filler and nothing that restates the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. However, for a destructive operation the description says nothing about what state is destroyed, whether results are retained, or error behavior when no simulation is active, leaving a meaningful gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the wait actually yields ('returns what cm_wait_end returns') rather than just repeating the idle-wait wording.

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 and resource ('Stop the running simulation'), which cleanly contrasts with the sibling cm_start_sim. It stops short of explicit sibling routing, but the reference to cm_wait_end makes the boundary with that tool inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Stop the running simulation' rather than stated as a condition. The note linking wait_s > 0 to cm_wait_end implies a choice between the two tools, but no when-not or prerequisites (e.g. whether a simulation must be running) are given.

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