stop_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation unregisters a hook, which is useful behavioral context beyond the verb 'stop.' It does not mention idempotence, error behavior, whether stopping all is irreversible, or what happens to active callbacks, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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 sentences with no filler; the primary action and special label behavior are front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies the underlying side effect. Every clause adds information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains target selection, the all-case wildcard, and the unregistering effect. It lacks only minor operational details such as return value or error handling, which are not required for basic correct invocation.

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 schema provides no description for label (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: label identifies a single watch/hook or the special value '*' to stop all. This covers the key semantics for the only parameter, though it omits details like exact-match requirements or not-found behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a concrete resource ('one watch or hook') and adds the special label '*' for stopping all. It is clear and distinct from sibling creation tools such as watch_property and hook_function, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with them.

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: call this when you want to stop a watch/hook or all of them, and the label parameter is explained. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer (e.g., watch_property/hook_function for creation), leaving the when-to-use decision mostly to inference.

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