auto_annotate_stop

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the description discloses substantial behavior: it reads status first and only calls the endpoint if a run is active; it surfaces the server's own action verbatim with possible values 'cancelled', 'dismissed', or 'none'; and it states the tool 'Ships ungated' and that dismissal 'moves no money.' This goes far beyond the structured annotation hints and gives the agent a precise mental model of side effects and response semantics.

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 five sentences long, but each sentence carries distinct behavioral or contextual information: purpose, pre-check behavior, response semantics, gating policy, and financial/non-blocking guarantees. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A slight deduction because the final sentence about 'never strands anything' and 'moves no money' could be considered slightly redundant with the earlier 'refuses when no run is active,' though it does add reassurance.

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 single-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential runtime behavior: when it acts, when it refuses, what actions it may report, gating status, and side-effect consequences (no money moves, no blocking of next start). There is no output schema, and the description effectively substitutes by explaining the server's verbatim action response. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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% and the single 'dataset' parameter is already described as 'Dataset ref by slug, owner/slug, or a ul://owner/datasets/slug URI.' The description repeats this same format list at the start without adding new semantic detail. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop or dismiss a dataset's auto-annotation run.' It also enumerates the accepted reference formats and distinguishes the action from sibling tools like auto_annotate_status and auto_annotate_start. The phrase 'consistent with training_cancel and export_cancel' further classifies it as a cancel/off-switch tool.

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—when you want to stop or dismiss an auto-annotation run. It states 'Reads status first and refuses without calling the endpoint when no run is active,' which tells the agent this tool handles the status check internally. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like auto_annotate_status for read-only checks, nor does it provide an explicit 'when not to use' condition, so it stops short of a full 5.

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