rescue_stop_session

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 communicates that this stops a session, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the action is irreversible, what happens to the mirror/OTG connection, or whether any prerequisites apply.

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. It front-loads the object ('Rescue session') and immediately states the action and parameter role.

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 operations tool, the description covers the core purpose and the role of PID. However, with no annotations and no mention of how to discover the PID or what consequences stopping has, an agent is left to infer several important details.

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 must compensate. It adds some meaning by clarifying that 'pid' identifies the running Rescue session to stop, rather than a generic process ID. However, it does not explain where to obtain the PID or how session PIDs relate to the output of rescue_list_sessions.

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 verb ('leállítása' = stop), a specific resource ('futó Rescue munkamenet' = running Rescue session), and the method ('PID alapján' = based on PID). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling start/list/status tools.

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 running Rescue mirroring or OTG session must be stopped by PID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites, such as obtaining the PID from rescue_list_sessions or that this is the inverse of rescue_start_mirror/rescue_start_otg.

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