zen_keep_alive_stop

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 only states that the tool stops the pinger, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects on tab state, whether it's reversible by start, or any confirmation needed. The description is minimal for such a simple action, but could benefit from clarifying what happens to active keep-alive pings.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an Args section, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately explains the parameter.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and simple action, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use the parameter, and the expected behavior. There is no missing information needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The sole parameter tab_ids is described in the text: 'Tabs to stop pinging. Omit (or pass null) to stop all.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default, explaining both how to select specific tabs and how to stop all. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well.

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 the resource 'keep-alive pinger', and distinguishes from the sibling 'zen_keep_alive' tool which starts the pinger. It also explains the scope (some or all tabs) using the tab_ids parameter.

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 context on when to use this tool: to stop keep-alive pinging for specific tabs (by providing tab_ids) or all tabs (by omitting or passing null). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the simplicity of the tool makes the usage obvious.

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