Stop a background job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that stopping is 'clean', that the default is every running job, that a summary is returned, and that a sequence's output is switched off unless started with end: keep. It does not mention permissions, irreversibility, failure behavior, or what 'cleanly' entails, leaving notable gaps for a stop operation.

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 definition is two tightly written sentences with the core action and default scope front-loaded. The parenthetical and the end: keep exception add necessary detail without waste, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core action, default scope, and one important side effect. It remains incomplete regarding parameter format, permissions, error behavior, and the exact effect of 'cleanly' stopping a job.

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 schema gives no meaning for the single 'job' parameter. The description partially compensates by indicating that it refers to a log or sequence job and that omitting it targets every running job. It still does not explain the expected format or how to identify a specific job.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: stopping a log or sequence job. It distinguishes between the two job types and states the default scope (every running job), so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as job_status.

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' and the default behavior when no job is supplied. However, the description does not say when to prefer this over siblings like job_status or status, nor does it state when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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