boss_agent_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait — that this sets a breaker state affecting '后续自动执行' (subsequent automatic execution), suggesting persistent effect rather than a one-shot action — plus availability constraints (roles and platforms). It omits whether the state is reversible, whether in-progress executions are aborted, and what authority is required, which are important for a stop/kill-switch tool.

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 core action is front-loaded in one compact clause, with the availability matrix bracketed at the end. No redundant sentences. The bracketed availability block is somewhat dense and templated but does not obscure the primary statement.

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 simple one-optional-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and who can call it. It is still incomplete on the operationally critical points: effect on currently running automation, reversibility, and post-stop state, which an agent needs before triggering a circuit breaker.

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 single optional 'reason' parameter is documented in the schema with a default of 'manual-stop'. The description adds no additional meaning about how the reason is used or where it is recorded, so this sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific action on a specific resource: '打开熔断，停止后续自动执行' (open the circuit breaker, halt subsequent automatic execution) within recruiting automation. This is distinguishable from siblings like boss_agent_run or boss_agent_train. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't clarify the granularity — whether it kills in-flight work, cancels queued tasks, or just sets a persistent flag.

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?

'打开熔断' (open the circuit breaker) implies an emergency/pause scenario, which gives an agent a reasonable usage hint. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over simply not calling boss_agent_run, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of how to resume automation afterward.

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