Cancel a sci-bot question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it reveals that the operation is a service request, that it waits for acknowledgement, that it returns the terminal state, and that text is preserved. It does not detail failure/error behavior or what happens if the ticket is already terminal, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and result, with the important preservation guarantee placed second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the applicable state ('active'), the synchronous acknowledgement behavior, the return value, and the preservation guarantee. It could add a note about invalid or already-terminal tickets, but the essential context 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 100%, and the schema already documents ticketId as returned by scibot_ask_question. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema-based baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific action ('stop an active ticket'), the object ('ticket'), and the outcome ('returns its terminal state'). It also distinguishes itself from deletion-related siblings by noting that accumulated text is preserved.

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 phrase 'active ticket' implies the tool is meant for in-progress questions, and the preservation note hints that it differs from delete tools. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus scibot_delete_question or other siblings, nor does it state when not to use it.

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