performance_stop_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a state mutation and a precondition (an active trace must exist), but does not say what happens to the captured trace data, where it is written, whether it errors if no trace is running, or what the response contains.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The brevity is clean, though it borders on under-specification for a mutation tool rather than being genuinely complete.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It omits preconditions, the fate of the trace data, and the meaning of filePath, all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is only 50%: pageId is documented but filePath is bare. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented filePath (presumably where trace output is saved).

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 clear verb+resource ('Stop the active performance trace') and scopes it to the page. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like performance_start_trace or performance_analyze_insight, leaving the agent to infer the workflow relationship.

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 only implied: the agent can gather that this ends a running trace, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., after performance_start_trace) or what to do with the result. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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