stop_trigger

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it declares idempotency for missing/already-terminal triggers and states the tool is "bypass-class," i.e. it bypasses pending-mutation queueing. It omits return shape and any permission/auth expectations, but the priority and idempotency traits are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the priority constraint, then the idempotency guarantee. "Bypass-class" is internal jargon that costs a little clarity but is explained by the clause that follows it.

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 two-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the two things that actually matter: urgency/priority bypass and idempotent handling of stale ids. Only the return/confirmation semantics are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a fire-and-forget cancel.

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 description coverage is 100%, so `trigger_id` and the optional `tab_id` ("scoped cleanup") are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that cancellation is keyed by id and adds no syntax, format, or guidance on when to supply `tab_id`.

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?

"Cancel a trigger by id" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and clearly positions the tool as the inverse of the sibling `trigger`. It stops short of naming sibling tools like `get_trigger_status` or `list_triggers`, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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 call it (when a pending trigger must be cancelled promptly) and notes it should not be blocked behind pending mutations, which is real usage guidance. However it never states whether an agent should check status first, nor does it name alternatives for inspecting or listing triggers.

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