VOD 받아쓰기 중지

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

The description adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: temporary files are deleted and partial recordings are discarded, so the agent knows nothing recoverable is left behind. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false since files are removed, but these are intermediate artifacts the tool itself created rather than user data, and the deletion is explicitly disclosed.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core action comes first and the side effects (temp file cleanup, no partial recording kept) follow immediately, which is the right order for an agent scanning for impact.

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 no-parameter stop tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the target, and the cleanup consequences. The only gap is that it does not say what the call returns or what happens if no transcription is running, which idempotentHint=true suggests is safe but is not spelled out.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description correctly says nothing about inputs, keeping attention on the effect of the call.

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 (멈춘다/stop) and resource (the transcription started by transcribe_vod), which tells an agent exactly what is halted and ties it to the sibling that starts it. It stops short of distinguishing itself from transcribe_status or asr_remove, so the differentiation against siblings is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by the reference to transcribe_vod: call it to halt a running transcription. There is no explicit guidance on what happens when nothing is running, when to prefer asr_remove instead, or any prerequisite, so the agent must infer the calling context.

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