stop_job

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well on preconditions: it reveals the status gate and that an explicit confirm:true is required, which prevents accidental invocation. It stops short of saying what stopping actually does to the job (deleted vs. disabled), whether it is reversible, or what error surfaces when the status check fails.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and parenthetical constraints after; every clause (status gate, alternative route, confirm requirement) earns its place with 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions and the confirmation guard but leaves the effect and safety profile implicit. An agent still cannot tell whether the stopped job is destroyed or merely deactivated, nor whether the call is reversible, which matters for an unannotated write operation.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema (id: "Job id", confirm: "Must be true to actually run"). The description's "Requires confirm:true" largely restates the schema, though it does add the useful constraint that a valid id must reference a job currently in 'scheduled' status. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Stops a scheduled job") and immediately narrows the scope to jobs with status 'scheduled'. It also names the route for the out-of-scope case (running jobs via nsdchat passthrough), so it is distinguishable from the sibling nsdchat tool without opening any 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 an explicit applicability condition (only jobs with status 'scheduled'), an explicit exclusion with the alternative to use instead (running jobs must be canceled via nsdchat passthrough), and a stated prerequisite (requires confirm:true). Nothing about when to call this versus the alternative is left to inference.

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