stop_thread

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

The annotations indicate this is neither read-only nor destructive, but the description adds no detail about what stopping a turn actually does, such as whether work is lost or whether the turn can be resumed. No contradiction with annotations is present, but the description alone does not disclose behavioral consequences.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It loses a point for using the unexplained term 'Freebuff turn,' but overall it is efficiently sized.

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 tool with one required parameter, the description provides a minimally viable statement of the operation, but it leaves out behavioral effects, when to use it, and how the threadId relates to the action. With no output schema and sparse annotations, slightly more context would make it complete.

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%, and the description does not mention threadId or explain that it identifies the thread whose turn should be stopped. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema 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?

The description states a specific action, 'Stop', and the resource, 'a running Freebuff turn', so the core operation is clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so differentiation from resume_thread is only implicit.

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 word 'running' implies the tool is for stopping an in-progress turn, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or that resume_thread is the counterpart for resuming afterward. Usage context is inferred rather than directly stated.

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