stop_paragraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that mutation profile. The description adds the motivating scenario (long-running/stuck queries) but says nothing about the resulting paragraph state, whether partial output is preserved, or the effect of stopping an already-stopped paragraph.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the args block is compact with no filler. The Args section is conventional boilerplate that carries little weight but wastes no space.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile comes from annotations. Still, for a cancel operation the description omits post-condition behavior (does the paragraph end in an error/idle state, are results kept), which an agent would want when deciding to interrupt a query.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does minimally by explaining that notebook_id identifies the containing notebook and paragraph_id identifies the target paragraph. This is essentially a restatement of the parameter titles plus light context, not deep semantics like ID formats or where to obtain them.

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: "Stop a running paragraph", which clearly contrasts with run_paragraph, run_paragraph_async, and run_all_paragraphs in the sibling set. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"Use this to cancel long-running or stuck queries" gives a concrete triggering condition rather than leaving usage implicit. It does not state when not to use it or what happens if the paragraph is already idle, but the positive guidance is strong for a simple tool.

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