Stop Task

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: billing stops, the task must be queued or running, operation_id must be reused for retries, and a new ID means a new operation. It also advises checking operation_status and resource state after a timeout, which is important behavioral guidance for a mutation tool. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary operational details. It is efficient, though the phrase 'Every write requires operation_id' is slightly broader than this specific tool and could be tightened.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the mutation's effect (billing stops), prerequisites (task_id source), idempotency guidance, and timeout handling—complete for an agent 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains that `task` is the task_id from the tasks tool, and it details `operation_id` semantics—required for writes, reuse the preview ID or generate a UUID, keep it across retries, and a new ID creates a new operation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop a queued or running task') and clarifies the task scope (queued or running). It also identifies the source of the task identifier, distinguishing it from siblings like stop_pod and submit_task without needing the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use: stopping queued or running tasks, with billing implications. It also provides operational guidance for operation_id and retry behavior after timeouts, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like delete or restart.

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