stop_embed_auto_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Arrêter') but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., stopping updates without deleting the embed), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what happens after stopping auto-update (e.g., does the embed remain static?), potential errors, or integration with siblings like 'list_auto_update_embeds'. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'embedId' documented as 'ID du message embed'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 'Arrêter l'auto-update d'un embed' clearly states the action (stop) and target (auto-update of an embed). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_embed' or 'list_auto_update_embeds', which would require mentioning what distinguishes this tool from those.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an embed with auto-update enabled), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_embed' for modifying other aspects. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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