gsc_stop_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses a non-obvious and important behavioral trait: the stop happens after the URL currently in flight, not mid-URL, and explains the rationale (quota slot and ledger row must settle). This is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds an essential caveat. Every word earns its place, making it an ideal concise description.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and its rationale well. It could be more complete by mentioning edge cases (e.g., what happens if the job is already stopped, or what the return value is), but it is sufficient for typical use and provides the most critical contextual detail (the no-mid-URL guarantee).

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?

The input schema has one parameter, job_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not add specific meaning to job_id (e.g., where to obtain it, format, or that it comes from a start-job call). It only refers generically to 'a running submission job,' leaving the agent to infer the job_id's role from the schema property name alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask a running submission job to stop.' It uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('running submission job'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gsc_start_indexing_job and gsc_job_status.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a submission job is running and needs stopping) and provides a critical context clue by explaining the stopping behavior ('never mid-URL'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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