Sim stop

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context: graceful writes a <CHID>.stop file to let the engine flush outputs and a restart checkpoint, whereas kill truncates results. It also discloses the 'Live app only' constraint — substantive detail beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loads the action and confirm requirement, then details mode tradeoffs compactly. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules]' metadata line is useful for rule lookup but slightly dilutes the otherwise tight prose.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers modes, confirmation, and the live-app precondition well. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no simulation is running or the failure/response format, which would round it out.

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 50%; the 'mode' enum values are enumerated but undocumented in the schema, and the description supplies their meaning (graceful vs kill with data-loss implications). It also restates confirm=true's requirement, though that is already in the schema.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('the running fire simulation') with the required confirmation inline. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like sim_start, sim_status, sim_log_tail, and evac_stop.

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?

Clearly frames when to choose graceful (default, completes output files + restart checkpoint) versus kill (immediate, results may be incomplete), and adds the 'Live app only' precondition. It does not name alternative stop tools (e.g. evac_stop) or state when not to stop, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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