stop_working

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation mutates session state, that it FAILS and writes nothing when no session exists, that the flag is dropped while assignment persists, and that the closed session is what makes duration reportable. Optional side effects (note appended, resume_context overwritten) are also disclosed.

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?

It is longer than most definitions but well structured: core action first, then prerequisite/failure, then the pause_working distinction, then optional state capture. Every paragraph earns its place, though the middle paragraph could be tightened by a sentence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, failure semantics, alternatives, and side effects of the optional parameters. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning: note is 'append[ed]... on the way out' and resume_context 'overwrite[s] the resume block' so the next session can continue. It clarifies sequencing (capture state before stopping) that the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Stop working on a task: close your open work session') and states the concrete effects (UTC end instant, dropping the 'actively working' flag, task stays assigned). It is immediately distinguishable from start_working and pause_working.

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?

It states the prerequisite ('Requires an open session... Call start_working first'), the failure behavior, and explicitly names the alternative for the adjacent case: 'If you are only waiting on something and intend to carry on afterwards, use pause_working instead.' When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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