diana_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial operational consequence: unsaved changes are lost unless save=True, and whether the DianaIE window itself closes depends on whether this server launched it. That launch-origin distinction is behavioral context the annotations cannot express. It omits what happens if no session is active, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and each parameter note earns its place; the wrapping across three lines for close_diana is slightly awkward but no content is redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive teardown tool with an output schema and destructiveHint already covering the risk profile, the description supplies the one thing an agent most needs: the data-loss condition on save and the window-state semantics of close_diana. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it explains what save protects against and resolves the null default of close_diana into the two concrete launch scenarios. The only gap is that it does not restate that save is required or what the boolean false means for close_diana beyond the launch-origin rule.

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?

"End the live session" is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly marks this as the teardown counterpart to diana_start in the sibling list. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description tells the agent how to use each argument, including the conditional default for close_diana, but never states when this tool should be preferred over simply leaving DianaIE running or how it relates to diana_status/diana_start. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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