Stop live disk log watcher

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Idempotent; safe to call when already stopped' and clarifies exactly what is torn down (file handles, in-memory buffer). It adds real context about what is destroyed, though it slightly restates the idempotency annotation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then usage and behavioral note. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 zero-parameter teardown tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and teardown semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 ('stop') and resource ('the active disk log watcher'), plus the concrete side effects (releasing file handles and the in-memory log buffer). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lol_logs_watch_start and lol_logs_watch_poll.

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 states when to use it: 'to end log watching and free memory when debugging is complete.' The complementary start/poll siblings make the alternative obvious, but the description never names them as it does for other tools in this family.

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