stop_sage_session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the worker is released, but it does not say what happens to in-flight or running computations, which is the key behavioral question for a stop/kill operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and target lead, and the worker-release clause earns its place. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Rich annotations and an output schema reduce the description's burden, and it correctly identifies the effect. Still, for one of four near-synonymous session-termination siblings, the description omits the distinction and any caveat about consequences to running work, leaving the agent to guess which tool applies.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Workspace name to stop"), so the schema fully carries the parameter semantics. The description's word "named" conveys the same idea without adding format, naming-convention, or identifier details, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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+resource ("Stop a named Sage workspace") plus the side effect of releasing the worker, so an agent knows exactly what entity is affected. However, it does not differentiate from the very similar lifecycle siblings cancel_sage_session, interrupt_sage_session, reset_sage_session, and start_sage_session, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. Given that cancel_sage_session, interrupt_sage_session, and reset_sage_session all plausibly mean "stop the session," the absence of disambiguation is a meaningful gap for agents choosing among them.

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