stop_working

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: marking the task as stopped, optionally appending a note, overwriting the resume block, and recording both as author_kind="ai". This goes beyond the schema and provides meaningful transparency, though it omits details like permissions or reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing important behavioral details.

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 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main action, optional state-capture behaviors, and author attribution. It lacks explicit mention of preconditions (e.g., must be currently working on the task) or return values, but these are not critical for a stop action and the description is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that note is 'appended' and resume_context is 'overwritten', and that both are recorded as author_kind="ai". This clarifies the behavioral effect of the parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Mark that you have stopped working on a task (break or switching tasks).' It identifies the specific verb (stop working), the resource (task), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_working. The optional state-capture details further clarify its role.

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 clear usage context: it is for stopping work on a task, whether for a break or switching tasks. It also explains when to use the optional note and resume_context parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like add_work_note or set_resume_context for cases where only those actions are needed.

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