stop_site_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'stop'), may have partial results available, and requires checking another tool for confirmation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a stop operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral notes. Both sentences earn their place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation to stop an active process), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and post-action steps, but could improve by mentioning potential side effects or error cases, which are relevant for a stop operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'projectId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the specific action ('stop active audit scan') and resource ('for a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_site_audit' (which initiates scans) and 'get_site_audits_list' (which lists audits). It precisely defines the tool's function without redundancy.

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?

It explicitly provides when to use this tool ('stop active audit scan') and when not to (implied for inactive or completed audits). It also names an alternative tool ('get_site_audits_list') for checking the audit status after stopping, offering clear guidance on workflow.

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