stop_job

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

The description aligns with annotations: 'destructiveHint: true' matches the destructive action of canceling a job. It adds the important behavioral constraint that confirm must be true for the action to happen. However, it does not elaborate on consequences like irreversibility or error states.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence fragment. It front-loads the action and key requirement, with no wasted words. While very short, it is efficient for a simple tool.

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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally complete for someone familiar with the Unity automation context. It explains the action and a critical parameter constraint, but lacks context about what constitutes a 'job' or how to retrieve a job_id.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain both parameters. It only adds meaning for 'confirm' (must be true), but says nothing about 'job_id' (its format or how to obtain it). The description partially compensates but leaves a significant gap for the required parameter.

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 the verb 'abbrechen' (cancel) and resource 'Job', clearly indicating it cancels a running job. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the context of 'stop_job' among job-related tools like 'list_jobs' and 'get_job_status' makes its purpose evident.

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 description provides one guideline: 'confirm=true nötig' (confirm=true necessary), indicating that the confirm parameter must be set to true to actually stop the job. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., job must be running), or alternatives (though none directly exist).

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