Stop Computer Control

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

Annotations already mark the call as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it latches a session kill switch and releases held input, indicating a persistent, state-changing effect. It does not contradict annotations, though it could be more explicit about irreversibility or effects on the active session.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler; each clause conveys a distinct behavior. The wording is economical but slightly obscure ('latch,' 'kill switch'), which prevents a top score.

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 destructive, non-idempotent control stop with no output schema, the description covers the core effect but omits surrounding context such as prerequisites, what happens afterward, and how the optional reason should be used. This is adequate for a simple command but leaves gaps for safe invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was responsible for explaining the optional `reason` parameter, but it never mentions it. The parameter's name and minimal schema text make it partially self-explanatory, but no guidance is given about when or how to provide a reason.

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 names a specific action (latch a session kill switch) and a secondary effect (release held input), clearly distinguishing this from sibling input/action tools. However, the 'latch the kill switch' wording is metaphorical rather than plain functional language, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implies this is the tool to end a control session and release all held input, which distinguishes it from individual release tools like hold_key or left_mouse_up. However, it does not explicitly state when to call it, what conditions require it, or which alternatives might be preferable; the guidance 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.