tdarr_stop_dedupe

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects, whether it cancels ongoing operations, or if it requires specific state. The agent is left uncertain about the tool's impact beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise, using only four words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is essentially a tautology of the tool name and lacks any additional context that would justify its length.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. An agent needs to know if this is a safe operation, whether it returns any status, or if there are dependencies. The current description leaves significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. It appropriately omits parameter details since there are none.

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 clearly states the action ('stop') and the resource ('dedupe process'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also perform stop or kill operations, such as tdarr_kill_worker or tdarr_kill_file_scanner, so it lacks contextual distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tdarr_find_duplicates or tdarr_kill_file_scanner. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that warrant stopping the dedupe process.

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