requests_stop_monitoring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses no-wait semantics, the ignored drain_timeout, post-stop data availability, the MONITOR_NOT_FOUND failure mode, and the profile-scoping constraint on all IDs. That covers destruction scope, error behavior, and identity scoping in one place.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return, then a second paragraph covering timing, data persistence, errors, and profile scoping. Every sentence conveys operational information; none restate the tool name or schema types.

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?

Output schema exists, so the brief mention of 'capture totals' suffices. For a zero-annotation, destructive-ish stop operation, the description supplies timing semantics, error codes, and cross-profile ID safety — nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is only 67%, and the undocumented parameter is profile_id — the description compensates fully by saying it is required, obtainable from profiles_list, and that IDs are local to that profile. It also clarifies drain_timeout's accepted-but-ignored behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema's default of 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop one monitor immediately and return its capture totals'), including the side effect of returning totals. It is clearly distinguishable from requests_start_monitoring, requests_list_captured, and requests_get_content, which are named as the surrounding workflow.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('when no more traffic needs capturing') and where the monitor_id comes from (requests_start_monitoring). It also states that drain_timeout is ignored and that already-captured records remain reachable via the sibling list/get tools, so the agent knows what happens next.

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