colab_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key behavioral trait: non-downloaded files are permanently lost, plus the compute-unit cost effect. It does not state permission requirements or behavior when no session exists, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight fragments with the core action front-loaded and the destructive warning appended. No filler, though the parenthetical could integrate more smoothly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive side effect is covered. However the optional `session` parameter is left undocumented, which is a real gap for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0% and the single `session` parameter (optional, defaults to null) is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no hint about what the parameter does or how the no-argument case is resolved.

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+resource ("Stop a session and release the VM") that cleanly distinguishes the terminal stop action from siblings like colab_restart_kernel or colab_job_cancel. It does not name an alternative explicitly, 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?

Usage is implied via the cost rationale ("stops consuming compute units"), which signals when an agent should call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance or prerequisite (e.g., requires an active session).

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