stop_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether stopping is disruptive/hard to reverse, whether it is idempotent when no stream is active, what happens to the stream connection, or what errors to expect. 'Primary streamer' also leaves unaddressed whether multiple stream targets exist.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and the target. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

For a zero-parameter action tool with no output schema the description technically suffices, but with no annotations the safety/disruption profile of stopping a live stream is left entirely unstated. Minimum viable, with a clear gap in behavioral context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No param syntax is needed or missing.

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 (Stop) and resource (streaming) with the scope qualifier 'on the primary streamer', which is enough to distinguish it from start_stream and get_stream_state among the siblings. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, but 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus start_stream, get_stream_state, or the recording counterparts, and no stated preconditions (e.g. must a stream be live). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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