stop_watering

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does only partially: it implies mutation and that a run must currently be active, but says nothing about what happens if no run is active, whether the action is reversible, required permissions, or any error/response 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the parameter-sourcing hint. No filler text and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and parameter provenance but omits failure modes and side effects, which are the remaining things an agent needs to call this safely. Adequate but with a clear 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 0% – the schema only names 'Schedule Id' with no explanation. The description partially compensates by telling the agent where the scheduleId originates (water_zone or the device event list), but adds no format, type, or null/empty handling detail.

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 an active manual watering run'), scoping it to manual runs rather than schedules. It also names the sibling tool (water_zone) that produces the required identifier, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools without opening schemas.

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 gives clear triggering context (an active manual run exists) and tells the agent exactly how to obtain the required schedule_id, from water_zone or the device event list. It stops short of an explicit 'when not' clause, e.g. distinguishing this from cancel_event for scheduled events.

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