stop_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails: it doesn't say whether the stop is graceful or forced, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the execution has already finished, what permissions are required, or what is returned. Only the 'currently running' state hint adds anything.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but the text itself contains no waste.

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 mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter gaps, the description still omits key operational context: effect on the workflow/instance, idempotency, error behavior when the execution is not running, and permission requirements.

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% and the single executionId parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond it. Baseline 3 for a schema-driven parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('execution') with the scope qualifier 'currently running', making it clearly distinct from execute_workflow in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action 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 phrase 'currently running' implies a precondition, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like deactivate_workflow or execute_workflow, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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