StopDIJob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'stop' implies a state change operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous or asynchronous, or what happens to in-progress data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient Chinese phrase that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 mutation tool that stops data integration jobs, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar 'stop' tools in the sibling list, the description should provide more context about what this tool specifically does, when to use it, and what behavioral characteristics it has.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (InstanceId, Id, DIJobId) including the deprecation warning for DIJobId. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('停止' meaning 'stop') and the target resource ('数据集成同步任务' meaning 'data integration synchronization task'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StopTaskInstances' or 'StopWorkflowInstances' that also stop different types of tasks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple other 'stop' tools in the sibling list (StopTaskInstances, StopWorkflowInstances), but the description doesn't explain what distinguishes this tool for stopping DI jobs specifically. No prerequisites or context for usage is mentioned.

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