stop_template_tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether tasks are killed or gracefully aborted, what the response contains, or how the `force` flag changes behavior — a notable gap on a destructive bulk 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?

Three short sentences with the operation and scope front-loaded; nothing is padded. The final boilerplate sentence about JSON-encoded string fields is only marginally useful given the schema contains no string fields.

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 bulk mutation with a nested body object, no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should at minimum explain what `force` does and what stopping tasks implies for their state. Those gaps leave the agent under-informed before an irreversible call.

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% across 3 parameters including a nested body object. The description only says to 'supply API fields in body' and that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, which is generic boilerplate and does not explain the sole body field `force` at all.

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?

Names a specific verb and a precisely scoped resource ('all active tasks of template') and includes the endpoint path, which makes the bulk-stop scope unambiguous. It never names the sibling stop_task, so the differentiation is inferred from the scope wording rather than stated.

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 explicit statement of when to use this versus stop_task, no prerequisites (permissions, task states it will terminate), and no caveats. The agent must infer that this is the bulk alternative to stop_task from the description text alone.

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