Stop Experiment

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). Description adds that results are preserved and promotion is optional. No contradiction. However, does not detail if stopping fails for already stopped experiments.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states core action and result preservation; second adds condition and exclusion. Well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema; description does not mention return value. However, for a simple stop action, the description is nearly complete. Could hint at success response, but overall adequate.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions that are identical to the tool's description for promote_winner. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; description adds no new parameter info beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it stops a running experiment, preserves results, and can promote winner. Distinguishes from pausing by emphasizing 'stopping is permanent.' Verb+resource (stop experiment) is specific and differentiates from siblings like 'metrx_get_experiment_results' or 'metrx_create_model_experiment'.

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?

Explicitly tells when not to use (for pausing temporarily) and provides guidance on optional parameter promote_winner. No alternatives named, but sibling list suggests other experiment-related tools; the exclusion is clear.

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