tvh_stop_mapper

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description confirms that a running operation is stopped but does not explain effects on in-progress mappings, required permissions, or how dry_run changes behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is terse but appropriately sized for the stated action.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the description's burden, and the main action is clear. However, dry_run semantics and basic operational context for deciding whether to stop versus inspect mapping status are missing.

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 sole parameter, dry_run, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. An agent sees only its name and default, so the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 ('automatic service-to-channel mapping operation'), with the scope limited to a running operation. The purpose is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as tvh_map_services or tvh_mapper_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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives like tvh_mapper_status or tvh_map_services. The agent must infer from the name that this applies only to an already-running mapping job.

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