stop_lsdyna_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that sw1 stops the job and writes d3dump so it can be restarted, while force=True terminates the process. It does not mention permissions, authentication requirements, or the exact consequence of cancelling a pending job beyond cancellation.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and follows immediately with the running-job modes and force guidance. It is compact, though the trailing 'Args: job_id, force' is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For correct invocation, the description explains the required job_id and the meaning of force clearly enough, including the restartability trade-off. It could be more complete about pending-job behavior and safety implications, but the core invocation guidance is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains force=True meaningfully, but job_id is only listed by name and not otherwise characterized beyond its name and integer type. The force semantics are strong, but the parameter coverage is only partial.

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 and resource: cancel/stop a job. It also distinguishes pending jobs from running jobs and explains the two running-job modes. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as send_sense_switch, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains when to cancel a pending job and gives the running-job alternatives: send sw1 for a restartable stop, or force=True to terminate the process. The trade-off between restartable stop and forced termination is useful. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over send_sense_switch or other monitoring siblings.

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