Stop DCA Plan

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that by emphasizing irreversibility ('This cannot be undone') and noting that the tool returns the upstream API response. It does not detail response fields, but for a simple destructive action the safety profile is adequately disclosed.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the irreversible consequence, the alternative tool, and the return type. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and there is no 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 one-required-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential context: what it stops, that it is irreversible, when to choose a sibling instead, and what the return value is. There is no output schema, so a little more detail about the upstream response shape would help, but the gap is modest for this level of complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: plan_id is already described as 'Plan ID' and _jq has a full explanation of jaq semantics. The description only reinforces that plan_id is the stop target, adding no meaningful parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Permanently stop a DCA plan by plan_id,' and clearly communicates the permanent nature of the action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling dca_pause by contrasting permanent stop versus temporary pause, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly states the when-to-use condition and directly names the alternative for a different intent: 'To temporarily pause, use dca_pause instead.' This gives clear routing between the two closest sibling tools, with no inference required.

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