stop_draft_monitor

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it waits up to five seconds, returns status and counters with a 'stopping' state if a batch is active, and clarifies it does not stop the ESPN companion or change saved configuration. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Each sentence adds essential information: the action, the return state, and the scope exclusions. No wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the behavior, the possible result, safety of repetition, and the next-step guidance. It is complete for a no-arg 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist; it focuses on behavior instead, which is appropriate.

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 action ('Request shutdown of the local draft monitor') with a clear resource and a time-bound behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like start_draft_monitor and get_draft_recommendations by naming the alternative for status confirmation, so an agent can easily differentiate.

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?

It explicitly advises using get_draft_recommendations to confirm running=false before starting another monitor, and notes that repeated calls are safe. This provides clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance, plus a named alternative.

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