terminate_sync

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It clarifies this is a mutating/terminating operation that stops an ongoing sync. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the sync state afterward, whether termination is reversible, or side effects beyond stopping. Does not contradict annotations (none exist), but behavior details are thin.

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 core purpose. The second sentence adds useful 'when to use' context. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but is appropriately terse.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool lacks annotation coverage entirely. For a mutating/termination operation, the description should disclose more about side effects, reversibility, or errors. With 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, this falls short for a tool that terminates a running operation—users need to know state consequences.

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% (properties 'name' and 'instance' have no descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. However, the description provides no parameter information at all—it never mentions the app name or instance parameter semantics. With a nested params object and zero schema descriptions, this is a clear gap, though the tool only has 1 effective required param.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Terminate an ongoing sync operation' and 'Stops a sync that's currently in progress.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on termination, which is unique among sibling tools (none others mention stopping an in-progress operation). Clear and specific.

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?

Description implies when to use ('stuck, taking too long, or triggered by mistake') but doesn't name alternatives like sync_application or refresh_application as exclusions. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance. Context is helpful but lacks clear differentiation instructions against sibling tools.

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