acq_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as 'Disruptive' and requires 'confirm=True', effectively communicating the behavioral impact. However, it omits details on reversibility or side effects, which would be useful but not critical for a stop action.

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 two sentences long with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action ('Stop acquisition') and quickly adds the critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate. It covers the core function and the essential behavioral cue. Missing details like the return value are covered by the output schema, so no major gaps.

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% (the confirm parameter is well-documented in the schema). The description merely reiterates 'needs confirm=True', adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Stop' and the resource 'acquisition', and adds 'freezing the current trace' for precision. It distinguishes from siblings like acq_run and acq_configure by mentioning disruption, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly mandates 'confirm=True' as a prerequisite, indicating the critical usage condition. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like acq_run or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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