⚠️ Target action: stop

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral details: it removes active manual or auto bids, resets settings, and does not reduce spending to zero. It also explicitly warns about the continued charging at base price, providing transparency not captured by annotations alone.

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 concise yet thorough, using four sentences to convey the action, warning, behavior, and return value. No unnecessary words; all information is front-loaded and essential.

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?

Given the tool's three parameters (one required), three annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the operation, its side effects, return type (text message), and rate limit. This covers the key points an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, so the description's job is reduced. It adds minimal value beyond schema, only contextualizing the itemID as the listing for which to stop promotion. It does not elaborate on dryRun or idempotencyKey, but the schema already handles them adequately.

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 ('stops target-action promotion for a listing') and the resource ('listing'), providing a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_manual_bid/save_auto_bid by focusing on removal rather than creation or modification.

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 explains the effect of stopping promotion (resets bids, continued base pricing) and mentions that to resume promotion, the user must use save_manual_bid/save_auto_bid, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if only adjusting bids).

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