stop_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the cascading termination of child processes and the fact that already-written files are moved out of the session into a .jobs folder rather than discarded.

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: action, side-effect on files, and the hard limitation. The core action is front-loaded with no preamble or redundancy.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, side effects, and un-stoppable cases, which is enough to invoke it safely. Return behavior is unspecified but expected minimal for a stop operation.

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%, with both 'id' and 'session' fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Stop) and resource (a running job) plus the scope of what it affects ('every process it started'). Distinguishable from siblings like get_job or run_job without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear exclusion ('Higgsfield and Replicate clips cannot be stopped'), which guides the agent on when this tool will not work. It does not name an alternative for checking job status first, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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