Stop Waveform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious default (queued events stop, current vibration continues) and the side effect of stop_vibration=true sending a separate command. It does not say what happens to an in-progress waveform, whether errors occur if nothing is queued, or whether the change is immediate versus deferred.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a semicolon-delimited qualifier; every clause carries operational information (action, default behavior, opt-in side effect) and nothing is padding.

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 no explanation, and the key default behavior is covered. Still missing for an annotation-free state-changing tool: what happens to the currently playing waveform, error conditions, and whether the stop is immediate or takes effect at a boundary.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: stop_vibration is explained as opt-in (default false) with the added effect of sending a vibration stop. Meaning is fully conveyed even though the schema itself is bare.

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 subsequent waveform events, and explicitly notes the default does not stop the current vibration. This separates it from the sibling stop_vibration, which is invoked separately via the flag. The only ambiguity is what a 'waveform event' is, but the core action is unmistakable.

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 implies usage through the conditional: use the stop_vibration flag when you also want vibration halted. It never states explicitly when to prefer this over stop_vibration, stop_device, or start_waveform, nor any prerequisites, so the agent must infer the routing.

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