Stop an AutoDM

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value by describing the resulting state and how to observe it. However, it is silent on whether a stopped monitor can be resumed (resume_autodm is a sibling) and whether in-flight DMs are cut off, which matters for a tool flagged destructive. The gap between 'stop' framed as non-removal and destructiveHint=true is not resolved.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the effect and followed by the disambiguation. Every clause carries information an agent needs to choose correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one parameter is fully documented. The remaining omission is resumability and in-flight-send behavior, which would matter given the destructive annotation.

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 100% with a single required monitor_id that already documents its origin (list_autodms or start_autodm). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 an AutoDM monitor') and immediately names the observable effect: it stops sending DMs and shows as stopped in list_autodms. This cleanly separates it from the nearby siblings start_autodm, pause_autodm and delete_autodm.

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 routes the agent: use pause_autodm for a temporary break, delete_autodm to remove entirely, and this tool otherwise. It even names the verification path (list_autodms with include_inactive), which no other sentence would have supplied.

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