Stop LIVE

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the confirm requirement and the need to verify offline state, but does not address reversibility, permissions, or response format. It adds some value but remains incomplete.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. Two sentences convey both the action and a required verification step with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the required confirmation, and a post-condition verification. It is adequate for the complexity, though it could mention error handling or what happens if confirm is false.

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 schema already fully documents the confirm parameter (100% coverage) with a const true and description. The description's 'only with confirm:true' is redundant and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 title 'Stop LIVE' and description 'Stop LIVE' clearly state the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like studio_start_live.

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 provides a critical usage condition ('only with confirm:true') and a post-action step ('verify the resulting offline state'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit.

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