library_desk_stop

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable detail that 'the current snapshot remains available,' reassuring the agent that stopping the refresh does not discard data. It also clarifies the operation is non-destructive. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey and aligns with them.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and a useful clarifying sentence about the snapshot. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple idempotent stop operation, the description is sufficient: it explains the outcome and clarifies that the snapshot remains. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the operation has no side effects that need disclosure. The use of 'session' aligns with the session_id parameter, so the missing parameter documentation is contextually supplied. Could mention behavior when called again, but idempotentHint already covers that.

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 only 50% because session_id lacks a description. The tool description does not mention or explain either parameter. 'Collection' and 'session_id' are left to be inferred by their names and defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and for the under-documented session_id, it provides zero elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Stop periodic refresh for a reading-desk session.' This clearly indicates the action and target. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like library_desk_refresh and library_desk_watch by stating it stops the periodic refresh, not starts or retrieves.

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 usage: it is meant for stopping a periodic refresh that presumably was started by library_desk_watch or similar. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, nor does it note that the session may continue to exist for other operations. Thus, it provides some implied context but not thorough guidance.

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