stop_workflow_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by warning about edition/license/permission dependence and Community-edition 404/empty-list behavior. It stops short of saying what state the run ends in or what happens to in-flight jobs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, but the four fragments read like concatenated notes ('stop workflow run.', endpoint, body note) rather than a coherent sentence. Every part carries information, though 'Supply API fields in body' is close to 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 destructive mutation with no output schema and thin schema coverage, the description covers where the IDs go and the availability pitfalls but omits outcome semantics (run status after stop, behavior on already-finished runs, response shape). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. The endpoint template does map project_id/workflow_id/run_id to path positions, which is genuinely useful, but the body parameter is only described as 'supply API fields', which is too vague for an edition-specific options object.

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 and resource ('stop workflow run') and the exact REST endpoint, so the target entity is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby stop_task / stop_template_tasks siblings, so the agent must infer the workflow-run scope itself.

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 availability caveat (edition, license, permissions, possible 404/empty responses) tells the agent when the call may fail, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as stop_task when the goal is to stop a task rather than a run.

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