stop_houdini

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it is a destructive teardown that will only work on sessions this server launched, with a stated rationale (unsaved work risk). It does not say what error or state results if an unowned pid is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical safety constraint before the Args block; no filler. The opening clause and the 'Only sessions started by this server' sentence overlap slightly, costing a bit.

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 single-optional-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the eligibility constraint, and the default. Only the failure/edge behavior for an ineligible pid is left unspecified, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0% (the pid field only declares integer/null with a null default), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines pid as the session to stop and explains the default is the current session if this server started it. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare type.

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 (stop) and resource (a Houdini session), and explicitly ties it to the sibling start_houdini, so the agent can distinguish this teardown tool from connect_houdini or start_houdini without opening a schema. The added 'go back to the previous session' clarifies the resulting state.

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?

Gives clear selection context: use it only for sessions this server started, and the reason to avoid others (possibly someone's unsaved work). It does not name an alternative tool for shutting down foreign sessions, so it stops just short of explicit alternatives.

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