stop_salesbot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the bot stops immediately, if it can be restarted, if it affects ongoing processes), permission requirements, or what the response contains. Moreover, the description actively misleads by suggesting execution rather than stopping, making the behavioral expectation incorrect.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified and ambiguous. It lacks essential information about the operation (stop vs. execution) and could be considered more of a fragment than a helpful summary. The brevity does not compensate for the lack of clarity.

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 that performs a potentially destructive action (stopping a Salesbot), with no annotations, no output schema, and a misleading description, the description is completely inadequate. It provides neither operational details nor any context about the entity or bot lifecycle, making it impossible for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (bot_id, entity_id, client_slug), with entity_type having an enum and default but no textual description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters, relying entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is 75% and the schema descriptions are relatively clear, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Para a execução de um Salesbot para uma entidade específica' translates to 'For the execution of a Salesbot for a specific entity', which directly contradicts the tool name 'stop_salesbot' (a stop operation). It does not state the action of stopping; it implies execution. This is misleading and fails to convey the tool's actual purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where this tool should be chosen over other Salesbot-related tools like launch_salesbot. The description only vaguely mentions 'for a specific entity' without explaining the context of stopping.

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