stop_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the implicit 'currently running' constraint and says nothing about whether the debug session survives, whether unsaved scene state is affected, or what happens to sessionId validity afterward.

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?

One short sentence with the key scoping word ('currently running') front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing misplaced.

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 simple one-param tool with annotations and no output schema, this is nearly adequate, but it omits the two things an agent would still want: how this differs from quit_godot/close_session, and whether the session handle remains usable afterward.

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% and the single optional sessionId parameter is documented in the schema including its follow-up-tool relevance. The description adds nothing about sessionId, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Stop the currently running Godot project'. It is understandable in isolation, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as quit_godot, close_session, or run_project (the inverse operation), leaving the agent to guess the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus quit_godot, close_session, or set_debug_pause, and no prerequisites or post-conditions given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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