stop_query_execution

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that the query execution is stopped, but does not disclose whether this is irreversible, what state the query transitions to, whether already-completed queries can be stopped, or what side effects occur. For a cancellation tool, 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 very short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The separate Args block is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but the overall structure is clean and does not contain unnecessary filler.

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 tool with no annotations and only a single sentence, the description is too thin to be complete. It fails to explain important operational details such as whether the query must currently be running, what happens if it has already finished, and how to discover valid query_execution_id values from sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It merely echoes the schema property title by saying 'query_execution_id: Query execution ID' and adds no new meaning about how to obtain the ID, its format, or its relationship to sibling tools.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Stop a running query execution.' This is a clear verb+resource pairing and is distinct from siblings like start_query_execution and get_query_execution, so an agent can identify the tool's role without ambiguity.

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 'a running query execution' implies this tool is for cancelling queries that are currently in progress, which provides minimal context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_query_execution for checking status, so usage guidance is only implied.

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