stop_climate

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 explicitly mentions a non-obvious behavior: the tool auto-wakes the vehicle if it is asleep. This offers valuable transparency beyond the schema, though it does not discuss potential side effects or idempotency. Still, it meaningfully communicates a notable behavioral trait.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and an important behavioral constraint (auto-wake). It does not explain return values or error handling, but for a straightforward stop command, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially when paired with the detailed schema.

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 input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, relying entirely on the schema for the semantics of vin, max_attempts, and wait_for_completion. This is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Stops') and resource ('climate system'), making it distinct from sibling tools like start_climate and stop_defrost. The added clause 'auto-wakes if asleep' further clarifies the scope of action, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 for when to use the tool (when stopping the climate system is desired), and implicitly distinguishes it from start_climate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage among the sibling tools.

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