komodo_stop_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says a build is stopped and returns a confirmation, with no detail about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the build state.

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 tightly front-loaded with the action, then cleanly structured into Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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 action with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, with no annotations and no auth or usage context, an agent still lacks guidance on when it is safe or appropriate to stop a build.

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%, but the description compensates for the single parameter by identifying it as the Build ID to stop. That gives enough meaning to correctly supply the required string identifier, though no format details are added.

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 and resource: stopping a running build. That is clearer than a vague purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as delete_build or stop_deployment.

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 implies use when a build is running, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or conditions for choosing it over alternatives like delete_build or run_build. There is no mention of prerequisites or state requirements.

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