bowire.mock.stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does deliver the two most important behavioral facts: the operation is idempotent and it returns false (rather than erroring) for an unknown or already-stopped handle. It does not mention permission requirements or the fate of in-flight requests, but the idempotency contract is the crucial disclosure.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the idempotency caveat follows immediately as the second most decision-relevant fact.

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 single-parameter lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the idempotency guarantee, and the return signal, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error/permission behavior, but nothing essential to a correct call 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose origin ('Handle returned by bowire.mock.start') is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'unknown handle' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the specific verb 'Stop' on the specific resource 'a mock server', and names the originating sibling 'bowire.mock.start'. An agent can distinguish this from bowire.mock.start, bowire.record.stop, and swait without any schema inspection.

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 phrase 'previously started by bowire.mock.start' establishes the prerequisite and the lifecycle context in which this tool applies. It does not, however, state explicit when-not conditions or name alternative teardown tools, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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