workload_stop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — in-flight statements are cancelled — but says nothing about whether the stop waits, is idempotent, or what happens if the run already finished.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the parenthetical consequence second; nothing is wasted. It is, if anything, thinner than the operation warrants, but there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for a mutation tool: prerequisites/permissions, the resulting state of the run after stopping, and how to identify the correct run_id.

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% for the single required run_id parameter, so the schema contributes nothing and the description carries the full burden. It never explains what run_id refers to or where to obtain it (e.g., workload_list / workload_run), leaving the only parameter effectively undescribed.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('a running workload'), so the agent can immediately tell what the tool does. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as workload_delete_run or stop_pipeline, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite the presence of related siblings (workload_delete_run, stop_pipeline, workload_status). The only implied usage is 'the workload is running', which the agent must infer.

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