Stop Visible Generation

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context: the visible generation may belong to the user or another agent, and acknowledgeUntrackedWork=true plus an audit reason are required. It also scopes the action to only 'currently visible' output. This goes beyond the annotations with specific behavioral constraints.

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 sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the requirement and the alternative. Every clause carries meaning and the structure is easy to parse.

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 destructive action with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to stop, the prerequisite acknowledgment, and the preferred alternative. It doesn't explain what happens if no generation is visible or the outcome format, but the output schema likely handles that. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of acknowledgeUntrackedWork and reason, but adds no new information beyond what the schema already states. The conversationId is referenced as coming from traecn_list_conversations, which is helpful but already implied by the schema description.

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' and a precise resource: 'the generation currently visible in the named active TraeCN conversation.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling traecn_cancel_task by explicitly saying to prefer that tool when a gateway task ID exists.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Stop only the generation currently visible...' and a clear alternative: 'Prefer cancel_task whenever a gateway task ID exists.' This leaves no ambiguity about which tool to select.

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