Halt Release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the outcome: 'The release will be marked as halted and users will stop receiving updates.' This is sufficient for a halt operation, though it doesn't mention reversibility or error handling, which is acceptable for this scope.

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?

The description is extremely concise, two sentences long, with a clear front-loaded action verb. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, all required, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the effect. It doesn't elaborate preconditions or post-conditions, but for a halt operation, this is adequately complete.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It simply restates the purpose without detailing parameter specifics.

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 clearly states the action: 'Halt a staged rollout' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like promote_release and update_rollout by focusing on stopping an ongoing rollout, not on progress or modification.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to stop a release that is currently rolling out.' This provides clear context without needing to compare to alternatives. However, it doesn't mention when not to use (e.g., if release is not in rollout state), but the condition 'currently rolling out' implies that.

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