log_stop

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

Annotations already indicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds modest behavioral context by framing the operation as a 'request' to stop, implying possible asynchronicity, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the job is already stopped.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and the resource efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the action, the resource, and the request nature. Missing details such as expected return behavior and valid job_id sources are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 describes job_id only as a required string, and description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the job is a 'telemetry job,' which ties the parameter to the tool's domain, though it does not explain how to obtain a valid job_id or what values are expected.

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 states a specific action ('stop') and a specific resource ('a telemetry job'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like log_start, log_status, and log_export. Even without the title, the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as log_start, log_status, or log_export. The relationship to log_start is implied by the name, but the description itself provides no explicit contextual or exclusionary guidance.

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