Stop a queued or running batch operation: processed contacts remain unchanged, while claimed but unprocessed contacts return to pending and are left untouched.
Stop a queued or running Run Batch. Contacts already processed stay as they are (there is no undo); claimed-but-unprocessed contacts go back to pending and are not touched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The run id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it states that processed contacts are irreversible and claimed-but-unprocessed contacts return to pending. That is valuable side-effect disclosure, though it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or response behavior.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical side effects. Every sentence adds necessary information without waste.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important operational behavior: partial cancellation semantics and lack of undo. It could say more about what the response looks like, but an agent can call it correctly from this.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented by the schema as the run id, and the description adds no further semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.
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 states a specific verb (Stop) and resource (a queued or running Run Batch), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like conduyt_create_batch_operation or conduyt_list_batch_operations, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 implies usage for queued or running batches, but gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives such as how this differs from stopping enrollments. The context is adequate but not directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.