reins_stop

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that motion stays blocked afterward until the owner resumes, which is post-call state an agent must know. It does not explain how long the block persists or how resumption is triggered beyond 'the owner'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Stop the robot now'), then eligibility, then consequences. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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 single-purpose stop tool with no output schema this covers the action and its lasting effect adequately, but it leaves the sole input parameter entirely unexplained and gives no detail on the resumption mechanism. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

There is one parameter ('reason') at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on whether it is needed, what format it takes, or how it is used. With a real undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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 and resource ('Stop the robot') with an immediacy qualifier ('now'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like drive, reins_policy, and reins_renew. An agent can identify this as the halt action without opening the schema.

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?

'Always allowed' tells the agent this can be invoked unconditionally with no permission or state prerequisites, which is valuable routing context. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of the top score.

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