pack_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that this is a stop marker, that the current tar finishes, that already-finished tars are preserved, and that the operation is resumable. Gaps remain on what happens to queued/in-progress work and any permission requirements.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the stop-marker/resume semantics tucked into a parenthetical. Dense but every clause adds information; no filler.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important stop semantics and the confirm gate but omits the meaning of the required 'set' parameter, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call it.

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 50%. The 'confirm' parameter is already documented in the schema ('Must be true to actually run...'), so 'Requires confirm:true' only restates it. The required 'set' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess what set identifier it must supply.

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 a specifically scoped resource: it stops a *detached* pack, after the current tar. The 'detached' qualifier and the parenthetical about stop markers distinguish it from container_stop and stop_job without naming them, though no sibling is called out explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it to halt a running detached pack, and note that rerunning pack --detach resumes. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing versus container_stop/stop_job, and no mention of prerequisites beyond confirm:true.

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