evac_stopStop a running evacuation simulation in the live BULC app after confirming; the run is discarded and no results are kept.
Stop the running evacuation simulation (confirm=true). No result is kept. Live app only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true — the user has agreed to this action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: results are discarded ("No result is kept") and the operation is restricted to a live application session. It still doesn't say what happens if no simulation is running 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 clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the required flag, the consequence, and the environment constraint. No filler and nothing that should be dropped.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema stop tool, the description covers the action, the data-loss consequence, the confirmation requirement, and the execution environment. The only real omission is behavior when no evacuation run is active or when the app is offline.
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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains confirm in full. The description's "(confirm=true)" restates that same constraint, adding no syntax, default, or failure-mode detail beyond the structured field.
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 a specific verb and resource ("Stop the running evacuation simulation"), which clearly separates it from evac_run and evac_status. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-sibling sim_stop, so the agent must infer the boundary from the evac_ prefix.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: "Live app only" tells the agent the tool is unusable in a headless/batch context, and (confirm=true) signals the confirmation precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor a pointer to sim_stop for non-evacuation runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.