stop

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavior beyond that — it works even with broken code, the editor contents survive, get_code still returns them, and a later set_code resumes playback. It also discloses the pre-start no-op with a message, which is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent cannot infer.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, followed by state-aftermath and the pre-start edge case. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent toggle with no output schema, the description covers the only things an agent needs: what is stopped, what survives, how to resume, and what happens if the page was never started.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing argument-like details.

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 ('Stops all sound in the Moontide page') with scope qualifiers ('right away, even when the current code is broken'). The sibling set includes 'start', and the name/description pair makes the complementary relationship unmistakable without opening a schema.

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?

Implicitly frames the tool as the inverse of 'start' and gives a concrete precondition case: before Moontide is started it reports that and starts nothing, so the agent knows calling it pre-start is harmless. It never explicitly names 'start' or 'set_code' as alternatives for other intents, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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