stop_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action 'stop a running pipeline' and describes parameters. It does not disclose whether stopping is reversible, whether it interrupts in-flight work, what happens to pipeline state, or whether permission is required.

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?

The description is extremely compact, front-loads the core action in the first sentence, and then lists parameters in a structured Args block with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but the lack of behavioral transparency and any guidance about verifying pipeline state creates a gap. An agent could invoke the tool correctly, but it would not know what to expect beyond the fact that the pipeline is stopped.

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 does add meaning for the database parameter by explaining that it 'defaults to the connection's configured database,' which the schema's null default does not convey. The pipeline_name explanation is largely a restatement of the property name, but for two parameters the overall semantics are adequately covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a running pipeline.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_pipeline, start_pipeline, drop_pipeline, and alter_pipeline, so an agent can identify the correct operation without ambiguity.

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 word 'running' implies the tool should be used only on pipelines that are currently active, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking pipeline_status first, nor does it contrast stopping with dropping or restarting a pipeline.

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