Cancel a running consultation

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

The annotations already declare that this is a mutating but idempotent operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: other servers receive a stop request, the process tree is signalled where permitted, and Windows descendants may survive if the CLI already exited. It does not describe permissions or partial-failure responses, but the added distributed cancellation caveat is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 three compact sentences with the action and target types front-loaded. The remaining sentences add distributed-stop and platform-caveat details without unnecessary preamble.

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 cancellation tool with annotations covering mutation and idempotency, the description provides the key operational context: what is stopped, that other servers are notified, and the platform limitation on descendants. It leaves some gaps around return behavior and exact identifier requirements, but is largely complete for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully maps job_id to a running consultation and group_id to a fan-out, and "or" implies choosing one, but it does not explicitly state that exactly one identifier is required, whether both may be supplied, or what happens if neither is provided.

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: "Stop a running consultation" or "fan-out". It clearly distinguishes cancellation from sibling operations such as consult_start, consult_get, consult_record, consult_export, and consult_list by describing the terminating action and the two target types.

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 implies when to use the tool by mapping job_id to stopping a consultation and group_id to stopping a fan-out. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools should be used to find the relevant identifiers.

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