Stop a running council

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by specifying what is destroyed: the Codex and Claude CLI processes are ended and progress is discarded. It also states the practical consequence the annotations cannot convey — the answer is no longer retrievable — which is exactly the irreversibility an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The destructive effect is front-loaded in the first sentence and the routing alternative closes the second, so an agent reading only the first clause still gets the critical warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description supplies the safety profile, scope, and sibling routing — everything an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly.

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% for the single job_id parameter, and the schema already documents the 'omit to use the most recent job' default behavior. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop a running job') and enumerates the exact job-producing siblings it applies to (council_ask, council_debate, council_ask_codex, council_ask_claude, council_join). It also names the contrasting sibling council_result, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition ('when the user asks to stop, or a council is no longer needed') and names the alternative for the opposite intent ('to check on a job instead, use council_result'). Nothing is left to inference.

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