eda_pcb_document_stop_calculating_ratline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the return type (boolean) and deprecation, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or behavior when no calculation is in progress. It lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 concise but contains redundancy: the deprecation is mentioned twice ('deprecated' and '[已弃用]'), and the signature line may be redundant with the tool name. It could be more efficient without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it says returns boolean (success). However, it does not cover when to call, what happens if no calculation is running, or any side effects. For a deprecated stop action, this is insufficient.

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 100% for both parameters (args and windowId). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for any gaps. Baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the verb 'stop' and resource 'ratline calculation', and includes the deprecation note. It differentiates from the sibling start_calculating_ratline. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only notes deprecation, which implies it should not be used, but does not explicitly recommend an alternative or explain under what conditions it is appropriate.

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