nt_stop_subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that resources are freed, but does not say whether the subscription_id becomes invalid, whether stopping is idempotent, or what happens to pending messages. This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 stop operation with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no usage or parameter guidance, it leaves the agent to infer lifecycle context and side effects.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining subscription_id. It only indirectly ties the parameter to the persistent subscription via the tool name and description, without specifying format, how to obtain it, or any constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and identifies the resource ('persistent subscription'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like nt_start_subscription and nt_poll_subscription. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied: call this when you want to terminate a persistent subscription and release its resources. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention that it is the counterpart to nt_start_subscription or how it differs from nt_disconnect.

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