stopPipeline

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the core action but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, whether the stop is graceful, idempotency, or what happens to in-progress pipeline steps.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the essential action and its target without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple pipeline-stop operation, the description gives adequate surface-level contextaint. However, with no annotations or output schema, it would benefit from stating expected effects, prerequisites (e.g., workspace/repo context), and what happens after the stop request.

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 documentation only covers pipeline_uuid, leaving repo_slug and workspace undocumented. The description does not explain why these are optional or how they relate to identifying the pipeline, so an agent gets little help beyond the parameter names.

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+resource pair: 'Stop/abort a running pipeline.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like listPullRequests or getPipelineSteps.

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 phrase 'running pipeline' communicates the key precondition and implies it does not apply to completed or non-existent pipelines. It does not explicitly name alternatives like getPipelineRun or runPipeline, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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