stop_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool stops or kills a job, without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or consequences of the action. The behavioral impact is minimally explained.

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 concise with two sentences plus parameter details. The main verb phrase is front-loaded. However, the parameter list formatting uses docstring style which slightly reduces readability.

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?

The description lacks important context: no output schema is provided, and it does not explain return values, error conditions, or whether the job must be running. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'job_id' is identified as the Orchestrator job ID, and 'strategy' is clarified as either SoftStop (graceful) or Kill (immediate). This compensates for the schema gaps.

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 or kill' and the resource 'a running UiPath job'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like start_job and get_job by indicating it halts a running instance.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions two strategies but does not explain scenarios for choosing one over the other. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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