stop_execution

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds the 'currently running' scope but does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility, effect on related data, or error 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that directly conveys the purpose without filler. It appropriately matches the tool's simplicity and is front-loaded with the 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers the core action. However, it does not explain return values or post-conditions, leaving some ambiguity about what happens after the stop/cancel is issued.

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 covers 100% of the parameter description, including 'Running execution ID to stop/cancel'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses specific verbs 'Stop or cancel' and identifies the resource as 'a currently running execution', clearly conveying the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_executions or get_execution, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 that the tool is for running executions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like delete_execution or retry_execution. It lacks conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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