Halt Release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the action takes effect immediately, requires no confirmation, deliberately bypasses the confirmation gate, and is still written to the audit log. It could add more about reversibility or failure conditions, but the major behavioral traits are well covered.

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 core instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence. The following sentences add valuable context about the confirmation gate and audit logging, though there is slight redundancy between 'no confirmation needed' and 'Deliberately NOT behind the confirmation gate.' Overall, every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need to be described in prose. Given the simple three-parameter operation, the description covers the essential behavior, context, and safety implications. It is reasonably complete, though a note about whether halting is reversible would strengthen it further.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

The opening sentence 'Halt a staged rollout' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like promote_release or update_rollout by focusing on halting rather than progressing or modifying a rollout.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: during incidents or when a rollout needs to be stopped immediately. It explains the deliberate exception to the confirmation gate and emphasizes the safety rationale, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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