stop_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path. It does not say whether stopping is graceful or a hard kill, what happens to the already-running process/output, or whether the 'force' flag changes that behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, with no filler. The final sentence about JSON-encoded string fields is somewhat boilerplate for this schema but does not bloat the text.

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 mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the force flag and the effect of stopping. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to call a destructive operation without knowing its consequences.

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 carry the load. The URL template does clarify that project_id and task_id are path identifiers, but the only body field, 'force', is never explained, and the note that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings does not apply to any documented parameter here.

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+resource ('Stop a job') and gives the exact endpoint, so the action is unambiguous. However it calls the resource a 'job' while the parameters and siblings use 'task', and it never distinguishes itself from nearby tools such as stop_template_tasks, delete_task, reject_task or wait_for_task.

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?

There is no guidance on when to stop a task versus deleting it (delete_task), rejecting it (reject_task), or waiting on it (wait_for_task). The agent is left to infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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