Training Stop

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: stopping local orchestration does not necessarily halt already submitted remote work, which is important for understanding partial effects.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The action is stated first, then a clarifying constraint, and every sentence earns its place.

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 safety and idempotency. However, the description omits any mention of the required run_id and provides no usage context, leaving clear gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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, but it says nothing about the required run_id parameter. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory in context, but the description adds no explicit meaning or format guidance.

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 (stop) and resource (local orchestration), and the second sentence clarifies scope. It does not explicitly name 'training' or 'run', but the tool name and title supply that context. It distinguishes from training_start and training_resume, though the resource phrase is somewhat abstract.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The second sentence only states a behavioral caveat, not when this tool should be chosen over siblings like training_resume or training_start.

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