DebugStop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it enumerates the concrete side effects (releases debuggee, removes breakpoints, stops listening, closes connections), explains batch-answer disposition, and discloses that partially-failed undo is reported and retained rather than silently dropped. Minor oddity: it self-labels "[read-only]" while describing substantial cleanup side effects, an internal tension an agent may trip over.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and each clause adding distinct operational information (cleanup actions, batch answers, partial-failure behavior, mode constraint). Nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior; it explains teardown scope, batch handling, partial-failure reporting, and execution mode. It leaves open the return shape of the reported failures and behavior when nothing is stopped, small gaps for a session-termination 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so state_handle and the detail enum are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no guidance on which handle to pass (e.g., from DebugStartListener vs a debug batch) or how detail affects consumption.

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 ("Ends a debug session") and scopes it as covering both ABAP and AMDP debuggees, which distinguishes it from the AMDP-only AmdpDebugStop sibling. However it does not contrast itself with DebugTerminate, another sibling that plausibly also ends sessions, so disambiguation is incomplete.

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?

"Runs outside batch mode" is the only usage cue, implicitly routing batch-context callers to DebugBatchEnd, and the enumerated cleanup actions imply this is the teardown step after DebugWait/DebugStep. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or statement of what happens if no session is active.

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