stop_computer_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that the call is immediate and that pending actions are invalidated, which are meaningful side effects beyond the name alone. It does not mention whether the operation is idempotent or reversible, but for a stop command the key behaviors are stated.

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 short sentences deliver the purpose and the key behavioral consequence with no filler. The critical information is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a parameterless stop command with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what effect it has. It could add context about what happens if no active control session exists, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully defines the interface. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('stop'), a specific resource ('active control session'), and an immediate effect. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like request_access or perform_action, which are about initiating or executing actions rather than terminating them.

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 clearly implies the intended use case—terminating an ongoing control session—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it address scenarios such as repeated calls or sessions that are already inactive. Basic context is present but no exclusion guidance.

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