stop_breaking_point_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral effects: terminates the round, restores original thread group settings, and retains established bounds. However, it does not mention what happens if the search is not running, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects on related resources. The disclosure is useful but not exhaustive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Stop a running capacity search') and then lists the three key behavioral outcomes. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what it stops, what it restores, and what it preserves. It does not describe the return value (no output schema) or error handling, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of explicit conditions (e.g., 'only call when a search is active') is a minor gap, but the phrase 'running capacity search' already implies this.

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% and the description does not explain the searchId parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should ideally state that searchId is the identifier returned by find_breaking_point or obtained from a status call. Since the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Stop' and the resource 'capacity search', and distinguishes it from siblings like find_breaking_point (which starts a search) and get_breaking_point_status (which queries status). The additional detail about terminating the round, restoring settings, and preserving bounds makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 description implies the tool is used to halt an in-progress search, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., a search must be running). There is no guidance on error conditions or fallback tools. The naming and context make the usage reasonably clear, but explicit routing is absent.

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