stop_job

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that force=true sends SIGKILL (implying a non-force stop is gentler), but it does not disclose whether the stop is reversible, what happens to data or state, whether special permissions are needed, or any side effects. This meets the minimum for a stop operation but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and follows with a critical parameter detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description leaves out important operational context that could affect agent decisions, such as whether stopping is irreversible, whether force=true is recommended in certain scenarios, or whether the tool returns a status/error state (though an output schema exists). The description is sufficient for basic use but lacks depth for a robust agent.

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. It explains the 'force' parameter's effect (sends SIGKILL), which clarifies the boolean's meaning beyond the schema. The 'job_id' parameter is self-explanatory and doesn't require elaboration. This adds value but does not fully document all parameter nuances (e.g., job_id format).

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 a clear resource ('a running job'), unambiguously stating the tool's core function. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on listing, creating, or managing cases/meshes/solvers, not on stopping jobs.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to stop a running job) and even hints at a conditional ('force=true'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., cannot stop jobs already finished). It provides context but lacks direct guidance on alternatives or when not to use it.

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