stop grpo run

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

The description discloses far more than annotations provide: the exact POST endpoint, API scope, 200 response, transition to STOPPED, refusal of further scoring, orchestrator exit, immediate hold release, already-metered spend staying billed, feature-flag gating, auth requirements, 404 behavior, and that no body is read. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure with no contradiction to annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: main purpose is front-loaded, followed by endpoint, response, behavioral side effects, error cases, and auth. No filler or redundancy; the structure makes the information easy to scan.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the return value ('200 { ok: true }'), side effects, error states, auth, feature-flag gating, billing implications, and idempotency behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, and the single required 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Must be ACTIVE and belong to the workspace.' The description repeats ACTIVE/workspace context but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Stop an ACTIVE online-RL (GRPO) run and release its wallet hold immediately.' It clearly identifies this as the stop operation for GRPO runs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_grpo_run, get_grpo_run, and list_grpo_runs.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use statement: 'use it to cut a run short when spend or results aren't what you expected.' It also documents key conditions such as 404 for non-ACTIVE runs and OWNER/ADMIN key requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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