Stop Device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses idempotency (safe to call repeatedly) and that the effect covers all supported outputs, but says nothing about required device state, error behavior when the device is disconnected, or whether it latches or auto-resumes.

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 clauses with zero waste: the effect is front-loaded and the idempotency note follows. Nothing redundant.

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 the effect plus idempotency are covered. However, with no annotations at all, an agent still lacks prerequisites (must the device be connected?), failure modes, and post-call device state.

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. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and scope: it zeros all supported outputs on the current device. This clearly distinguishes it from narrow siblings like stop_vibration or stop_waveform, though the difference is implied rather than spelled out.

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 phrase 'all supported outputs' implies a global stop versus the per-channel siblings, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. 'Can be called repeatedly' hints at a safe reset use case without naming alternatives.

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