stop_route

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (total messages moved, average_messages_per_second over elapsed_s), which compensates somewhat for the missing output schema, but says nothing about behavior when the route is not running, idempotency, or error/permission conditions.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the return semantics follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return values, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. Only failure modes and preconditions (e.g., what happens if the route is already stopped) are left unaddressed.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The route name'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, uniqueness, or naming-convention detail beyond 'by `name`', making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Stop a running route') and names the identifying parameter (`name`), which is unambiguous against siblings like list_routes or route_status. It does not explicitly contrast itself with start_route, but the operation is self-evident.

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 'a running route' — the agent can infer this applies only to an active route, and start_route is the obvious counterpart. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative is provided.

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