native_session_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: durable state and worktree are preserved for inspection, the main ChatGPT model is untouched, and Session-owned DeepSeek subagents must be safely stopped. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence about ChatGPT remaining the sole main model is slightly tangential but adds context; overall every sentence is short and purposeful.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, a prerequisite, and the side-effect guarantee of preservation. With a full output schema and complete parameter schema, nothing critical is missing; retry semantics are already implied by the idempotentHint annotation.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, but each parameter is already fully documented in the schema with origin, format, and purpose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it stops the isolated native-session process and preserves durable state and managed worktree for inspection. It also clarifies the tool's relationship to the main model, making the action unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling start/continue/recover/status tools.

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 when the tool should be used by stating that active subagents must be safely stopped and durably observed 'before the Session can finalize.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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