stop_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stop') but doesn't describe permissions required, whether the stop is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Updated pipeline status' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections add structure, though some sentences could be more informative. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more efficient.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or the meaning of 'Updated pipeline status', leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 description must compensate. It lists both parameters ('repo_slug' and 'pipeline_uuid') but provides no additional meaning beyond their names. The baseline is 3 since it documents the parameters minimally without adding semantic context like format examples or relationships.

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 verb ('stop') and resource ('a running pipeline'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_pipeline' or 'get_pipeline', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons with related tools like 'trigger_pipeline' or 'get_pipeline'.

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