eda_pcb_document_stop_canvas_update_calculation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that stopping the update calculation halts canvas rendering and property panel updates, and warns that misuse could have unintended consequences. This gives the agent meaningful insight into the side effects, though it doesn't explicitly state that updates remain stopped until a corresponding start call.

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 compact and well-organized: signature, brief explanation, clarifying remark, a strong warning, version, and return type. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant filler. A perfect score would require a bit more structural punctuation or clearer separation, but it is already highly efficient.

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?

The description states the effect (stops canvas updates), the return type, and a warning, which is reasonably informative for a simple toggle. However, it does not mention that the tool is part of a pair (with start_canvas_update_calculation) or that stopping is a persistent state change, which would help the agent reason about sequencing. Given no annotations and no output schema, this leaves a moderate gap.

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 function signature indicates zero parameters, and the schema's args/windowId are generic plumbing fields already fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are no function-specific parameters, the baseline score 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 identifies the action ('stop') and the resource ('canvas update calculation') specific to the PCB document. It enumerates what the update calculation includes (canvas rendering, property panel updates), which further clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_canvas_update_calculation' or 'trigger_canvas_update_calculation', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 invoke this tool versus its siblings (start, trigger, get status). The only instruction is a warning not to call it unless the switch's meaning is understood, but this is a caution, not a usage criterion. There is no mention of scenarios where stopping updates is appropriate or alternatives to prefer.

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