bolna_stop_agent_queued_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the effect (prevent execution) but does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, any permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to calls already in progress. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no return schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., invalid agent_id), confirmation of success, and edge cases (no queued calls). This leaves some gaps.

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 the single parameter 'agent_id' described as 'The unique ID of the agent whose queued calls to cancel'. The tool description repeats this same information, adding no additional meaning or detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 description clearly states the action (stop) and resource (all queued calls for a specific Bolna agent) with the explicit purpose of preventing their execution. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bolna_stop_batch' and 'bolna_stop_call' by specifying the scope is agent-level queued calls.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for stopping queued calls of a specific agent. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the name and description imply its use case sufficiently, and sibling tools cover different scopes.

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