mc_goto_stop

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect, that held movement keys are released, which is genuinely useful beyond the name. However, it is silent on whether calling it with no active walk is a no-op or an error, on idempotency, and on what is returned (there is no output schema to fall back on).

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the consequential side effect. Nothing is redundant and nothing reads as filler.

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 stop switch with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is stopped and what state changes. The only material gap is edge-case behavior when no walk is running, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. No parameter meaning is lost.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Stop the current mc_goto walk") and explicitly identifies the counterpart operation, mc_goto, rather than the read-only sibling mc_goto_status. It also states the concrete side effect (releasing movement keys), so an agent can distinguish it from every other movement tool 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?

Usage is implied: call this when a mc_goto walk is in flight and should be aborted. There is no explicit statement of when-not to call it, no mention of checking mc_goto_status first, and no guidance on whether it is safe or meaningful to call when no walk is active.

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