stop_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Stop a running build' and 'Cost: 0 credits', but does not disclose what happens if the build is not running, whether the action is irreversible, or any side effects of stopping a build.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic action and cost but lacks context on error handling, prerequisites (must have a running build), and what happens after stopping.

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 100% (the parameter 'execution_id' is described as 'The execution_id returned by build_company'). The description adds no additional parameter info beyond the cost, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Stop a running build' uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('running build'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings (build_company starts builds, get_build retrieves build info, message_build sends messages).

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 (when a build is running) and mentions cost (0 credits) as a usage hint. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.

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