stop_guardian

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and scope but does not explain consequences such as whether running validations are interrupted, whether stopping is reversible, or what happens if agent_name does not match an active Guardian. For a 'stop all' operation, this is a meaningful safety gap.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The core scoping information ('specific' or 'all') is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the core invocation path. However, with no annotations and no information about return values or side effects, the agent is left to assume outcomes, especially for the potentially destructive stop-all case.

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 already documents agent_name at 100% coverage, including the 'Leave empty to stop ALL' behavior. The description echoes that scope without adding parameter-level examples, constraints, or additional semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Stop' against the resource 'Guardian Agent' and clearly covers both scopes: a specific agent or all active Guardians. It reads as the clear inverse of the sibling start_guardian and is distinct from the read-only get_guardian_* tools.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever one or all active Guardians need to be stopped. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the start/stop pairing with start_guardian makes the intended use obvious.

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