Brute Genius Kill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that all nodes and shards are destroyed, that billing ends as a side effect, that already-scored partial results survive, and that the call remains reachable even if the agent goes silent. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the outcome ('Ends billing') is stated immediately after the action. The final clause about the agent going silent is slightly cryptic but still carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive kill operation with zero annotations, the description covers consequences well but omits irreversibility, preconditions on plan_id, and error behavior — meaningful gaps for a termination 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?

There is one required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies that 'a plan' has an identifier — it never explains what plan_id is, its expected format, or whether it must reference an active plan.

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 scope: stop every node and shard belonging to a plan, plus the visible outcome (billing ends). It is clearly distinct from plan/launch/status/results siblings by virtue of being the termination action, though it never names 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?

Usage is implied by 'Stop every node and shard belonging to a plan' and the note that partial results are preserved (so an agent need not wait for scoring to finish before calling). However, no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternatives among the sibling tools are given.

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