Stop the simulation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the blocking/return-equivalence behavior of wait_s > 0 but never says what stopping destroys (in-flight results, solver state) or whether the run can be resumed.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the parameter caveat second. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present and destructiveHint declared, the description doesn't need to spell out returns or safety. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter stop tool, missing only the side-effect/irreversibility detail an agent might want before killing a run.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's 'wait this long to become idle' by explaining the consequence of setting wait_s > 0 (it returns cm_wait_end's payload). That is genuine added meaning for the single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop the running simulation'), which cleanly separates it from cm_start_sim and the wait/status tools. It does not, however, explicitly position itself against close alternatives like cm_study_cancel or cm_wait_end.

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 sentence about wait_s > 0 returning what cm_wait_end returns implies a usage relationship with that sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance or statement of preconditions (e.g. must a simulation be running).

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