Live 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 well: it discloses that it blocks until the process exits, that a stuck engine (dead audio device, hung process) is force-killed along with its render workers, and that recordings are closed. It omits any auth/permission requirements, but the destructive/blocking semantics are clearly conveyed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the failure/fallback behavior. No wasted words for the amount of behavioral detail conveyed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the behavioral narrative (fade, wait, force-kill, close recording) is complete for a simple stop tool. The main gap is the undocumented parameters, which leaves the agent guessing about fade_sec units/default and the project argument.

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 0% and there are 2 parameters. The description's mention of 'fade out' loosely gestures at fade_sec but does not name the parameter, give units, or state its default (1s), and the required 'project' parameter is not explained at all, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('stop the live engine') and adds scope detail (fade out, closes any recording), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like live_start, live_cancel, and live_status without opening their 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 implies its usage context (a graceful shutdown that fades and closes recordings) but never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives such as live_cancel or live_start, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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