stop_animation

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — idempotency after auto-stop, ownership restriction, and that it returns frame observations plus stop verification. This is meaningful disclosure for a state-mutating tool.

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, zero filler, with the ownership constraint front-loaded ahead of the idempotency and limitation caveats.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully notes what is returned (frame observations, stop verification) plus idempotency and scope limits. The only real gap is the unexplained scene_id parameter.

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?

One parameter (scene_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what scene_id is, its hex-32 format, or which scene's playback is targeted. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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+resource ('Stop playback') and immediately narrows scope to playback 'owned by this bridge', which distinguishes it from siblings like play_animation. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it complements, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear when-not guidance ('Cannot stop arbitrary external playback') and a precondition/caveat ('Idempotent after automatic end stop'). No explicit routing to a sibling alternative, but the boundary of what it can act on is unambiguous.

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