Hub Stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the blast radius ('every place disconnects') and, unusually, the negative blast radius (phone page, stage chat unaffected), which is genuinely useful for a destructive-feeling teardown. It says nothing about idempotency, whether the hub can be restarted with hub_start, or auth/permission requirements, leaving real gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the scope caveat. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 teardown operation with an output schema available, the description covers what happens and what is spared, which is enough for correct invocation. A note on recoverability via hub_start and on permissions would close the remaining gap.

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; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 hub') and immediately defines the observable effect ('every place disconnects'), which distinguishes it from hub_start and the various stage_stop/phone_stop/live_stop siblings that only affect one surface. It does not name hub_start explicitly, so it stops just short of explicit sibling routing.

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: an agent can infer this is the correct tool when it wants to tear down the whole hub, and the second sentence gives useful exclusions (phone page, stage, stream chat untouched). There is no explicit 'use hub_start to bring it back' or a stated precondition, so the guidance remains implicit.

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