debug_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does surface the most important trait: the debuggee is terminated by default, which is a destructive side effect. It omits error behavior for an invalid/stale sessionId and does not describe the result of the disconnect operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive default is stated up front rather than buried.

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 two-parameter session-control tool without an output schema this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no schema descriptions, more is needed on sessionId sourcing and on what the caller sees after the session ends.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic effect of terminate_debuggee via the 'by default' clause, but sessionId — the required parameter — receives no explanation of what form it takes or where it comes from.

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 (disconnect/terminate) and resource (debug session), which is clearly the counterpart to the debug_launch/debug_attach siblings in the list. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this ends an active session. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a live sessionId) or of alternatives such as detaching without terminating, so the when-to-use boundary 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.