Stop transmitting

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: immediate shutdown, silencing every DDS tone, closing sample buffers, and powering down the TX local oscillator. It also explains why the never-gated behavior exists, which aligns with and enriches the idempotency annotation without contradicting it.

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 three short sentences, front-loading the immediate action and then justifying the unconditional availability. The 'off switch' aphorism earns its place by explaining the design rationale in a memorable way, with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter control tool with an output schema and relevant annotations, the description covers purpose, exact side effects, usage conditions, and safety. An agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly and know what will happen.

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 one optional parameter, response_format, and the schema describes it fully with an enum and default value. The description adds nothing about parameters, but that is acceptable because schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Stop all transmission immediately') and enumerates the exact effect: silence DDS tones, close sample buffers, and power down the TX local oscillator. The 'all' qualifier and concrete actions distinguish it from status or tone-generation siblings like sdr_tx_status and sdr_tx_tone.

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 description gives clear contextual guidance by stating it is 'Never gated' and 'Safe to call at any time,' meaning no precondition blocks its use. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, but the unconditional availability is strong enough guidance for this control action.

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