stop_overlay

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds the scoping detail that only overlays started by this server are affected, but it provides no additional behavior like error handling, permissions, or side-effects, which is acceptable given the hints.

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?

It is a single, concise sentence in Korean that directly states the action and scope. No filler or redundant information; it earns every word.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the exact scope, and the only missing piece is edge case behavior (e.g., what happens if no overlay is running), but that is minor for such a simple 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 schema needs no explanation. The description fully covers the absence by not needing any parameter context. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter information is required or expected.

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 'terminates' (정상 종료) and a clear resource: the tvsub overlay process started by this MCP server. It explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like start_overlay, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a running overlay, nor does it suggest any alternative or when not to use it. This is a notable gap for a tool that naturally pairs with start_overlay.

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