Feedback Stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses scope (all rounds' pages stop answering), durability (nothing saved is lost), and deferred work (clips awaiting transcription resume on restart). It doesn't say whether the call is idempotent or what happens if nothing is running, which keeps it at 4.

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 names the action first, then a compact parenthetical supplies the three facts an agent needs (scope, durability, deferred transcription). Every clause earns its place.

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, no-annotation tool, the description covers the state-changing effects and the recovery path, and the existing output schema handles return values. Only edge-case behavior (calling stop when the server is already down) is unaddressed.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter behavior the description needs to compensate for, and it correctly adds no noise on this dimension.

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 the shared feedback page server") and names the counterpart tool (feedback_page) that restarts it, so an agent can distinguish it from feedback_read/feedback_list/feedback_wait without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description makes the usage relationship explicit by noting the server is restarted via feedback_page, and the parenthetical clarifies the consequence of stopping mid-round. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. behavior if the server isn't running), so it lands just below a 5.

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