jumpserver_job_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the stop is implemented as Ctrl+C to the remote shell and the session is returned to normal command mode, which explains the mechanism and the post-condition an agent should expect.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the mechanism/effect following. No filler and nothing that needs trimming.

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 control tool with annotations carrying the destructive/non-idempotent profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: action, mechanism, and resulting shell state are all given. It would be fully complete with a note on what happens if the job is already stopped or the jobId is invalid.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents jobId as the id returned by jumpserver_job_start. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a streaming job") plus the mechanism used to do it, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as jumpserver_interrupt or jumpserver_close, which are not named or contrasted.

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 only implied: the description notes the shell is "released for normal commands," which suggests this is the counterpart to jumpserver_job_start, and the schema ties jobId to that tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over jumpserver_interrupt/close, nor any precondition or exclusion.

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