stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real side-effect disclosure: it cancels Baritone, releases scripted input, and explicitly does not touch the bridge service. It stops short of saying what happens to a task mid-execution or whether partial output survives.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then side effects, then the scope exclusion. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 one-optional-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, targets, side effects, and an explicit non-goal. The remaining gap is how to address a specific task and what, if anything, comes back.

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 coverage is 0% and the single optional `task` parameter is a bare string. The phrasing "one ... task or all MCP tasks" implies omitting it stops everything, but the description never states that rule outright nor says whether the value is a task name, ID, or handle.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Stop one MCP-owned JsMacros task or all MCP tasks") and immediately bounds the target set with "MCP-owned". The closing clause "Does not stop the bridge service" carves out scope so an agent can tell this apart from a session/bridge teardown.

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 scope (one task vs. all tasks) and the implicit motivation ("release scripted input for player takeover") hint at when to call it, but no sibling is named and there are no explicit when-not conditions against alternatives like execute. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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