stop_package

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds only the endpoint and 'Python SDK parity', which does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations, but no added transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded, conveying the endpoint and action immediately. It could include more detail, but its current size is efficient.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the consequences of stopping a package, whether the action is reversible, or what the response looks like. The annotations provide some safety signals, but the description itself lacks essential context for an agent to use it confidently.

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 50% (only dry_run has a description; package_id does not). The tool description says nothing about parameters, so it does not compensate for the missing package_id semantics. While the name implies its role, the description adds no 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 description clearly states the action ('остановить пакет' / 'stop package') and the target resource (package). It also provides the exact endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_package_status or send_package. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'package' is or the broader scope of the operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states the operation without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and endpoint.

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