stop_ddb_roll_pump

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary effect (disconnect WebSocket) and an important side effect (buffered rolls remain drainable until next start). This gives the agent a good sense of what happens and what persists. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a 0-parameter stop action, this is adequate.

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 only two sentences, with the core action front-loaded ('Stop the D&D Beyond roll pump') followed by a clarifying explanation of the WebSocket disconnect and the buffered-roll behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It explains the action, the underlying mechanism, and the state that persists after stopping. It could mention that calling it repeatedly is idempotent or what happens if already stopped, but those are minor gaps for a low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers any input. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate; the description adds nothing extra but none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('D&D Beyond roll pump'), and clarifies the mechanism ('disconnects the game-log WebSocket'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like start_ddb_roll_pump and ddb_roll_pump_status. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and that it's the inverse of start_ddb_roll_pump.

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 implies when to use it (when you want to stop the pump) and provides essential context about buffered rolls remaining drainable until the next start, which hints at the start tool as the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state 'use start_ddb_roll_pump to resume' or mention any conditions for when not to use it. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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