playback_stop

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention overlay and stop parameters, which add some behavioral nuance (e.g., ability to stop overlay vs. main audio). However, it omits side effects, error behavior, preconditions (e.g., active playback), and any permissions needed. This is a common gap for mutation tools.

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 and well-structured with a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and each sentence contributes to understanding. No unnecessary fluff, though the Args section could have been more aligned with the actual input schema.

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, the description is mostly complete in explaining the parameters, but it leaves a critical gap: the input schema requires a 'request' object, and the description does not explain how the listed parameters fit into that envelope. There is no example, no mention of errors, and no handling of edge cases. This incompleteness can lead to incorrect invocation.

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 is a generic 'request' object with 0% coverage, so the description's detailed parameter list (call_control_id, overlay, stop) adds substantial meaning. It specifies requiredness, types, defaults, and valid values for the stop parameter. However, there is a mismatch: the schema expects a 'request' wrapper, which the description does not acknowledge, potentially confusing an agent on how to structure the call.

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 tool stops audio playback on a call, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings like playback_start, speak, and hangup. No ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where stopping playback is appropriate, nor does it reference any other tools as alternative options. Usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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