stop_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the stop is graceful or immediate, whether partial results survive, whether a stopped job can be resumed, or whether permissions are required — all material for a destructive mutation.

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 no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, zero schema description coverage, and an unexplained enum parameter. Given that complexity, one sentence stating the verb is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all; job_id is inferable from its name, but the language enum (ja/en/zh) is completely unexplained for a stop operation, which is a real ambiguity the description should resolve.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: "Stop a running job." An agent can tell this is a termination operation rather than a status query, though it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like job_status, run_simulation, or control_surrogate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus job_status or the other job-lifecycle siblings, and no prerequisites such as whether the job must be actively running. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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