Stop Workspace task group

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

Annotations only give a generic destructive/idempotent profile; the description goes well beyond that by naming exactly what survives (copies, saved revisions, agents), what Plori does not do (does not submit a stopped worker's files), and the interaction with submit_workspace_changeset. It also describes the state lifecycle returned (stopping → stopped), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 core action and its side effects are front-loaded, and the alternative route is placed last, which is good structure. It is fairly long (five sentences) and slightly dense, but nearly every sentence carries distinct behavioral information, so little 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?

With an output schema present, the description is not obliged to explain return values, yet it still summarizes the returned group state and cancelled runs. Combined with preserved-artifact disclosure and the sibling routing note, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so workspace_id and task_group_id are already documented in the schema. The description references run_id/workspace_id only in the context of the cancel_run alternative and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 opening clause names a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Stop every worker of a task group', and it immediately clarifies partial-state behavior (not-started workers never start, running runs cancelled). It differentiates itself from the sibling cancel_run by explicitly noting the one-worker case.

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?

It states the condition that selects the alternative: 'To stop one running worker only, use cancel_run with its run_id and workspace_id.' It also gives the operational boundary (no new workers start afterwards) so an agent knows when this is or is not appropriate.

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