Multistart Stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Request graceful stop' does hint that the halt is cooperative/asynchronous rather than immediate, which is useful, but it omits whether the call blocks, whether it is idempotent, what happens if no optimization is running, and what response is returned.

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 no filler; every word (graceful, multistart) earns its place by narrowing the meaning.

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 parameterless control command with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out key operational context: blocking behavior, idempotency, and confirmation of the stop.

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 no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the schema requires clarification in the description.

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 of multistart optimization'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It does not explicitly name the sibling zemax_multistart_optimize or zemax_multistart_status to disambiguate, but the intent is unambiguous from the name and text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to halt a running multistart job. There is no explicit statement of when to invoke it versus zemax_restart or zemax_multistart_status, nor any precondition (e.g., that an optimization must be in progress).

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