Stop a bot

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaning beyond them: exactly what persists after the stop (orders and analytics remain readable), the required `bots:write` scope, and a concrete rate limit with the shared `control-plane` budget. This is the kind of side-effect and authorization detail annotations cannot express.

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 behavioral core is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the scope/alternative routing comes before the operational caveats. The rate-limit paragraph is longer than strictly needed for tool selection, but it earns its place as non-obvious shared-budget guidance.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: authorization scope, post-state of related data, the boundary against cancel_orders, and throttling behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents `name`. The description adds no naming, format, or resolution semantics beyond what the schema states, 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 ('Stops') plus resource ('the bot') and adds scope detail ('and retires it'), then distinguishes the action from the adjacent one (cancelling resting orders). An agent can separate this from delete_script, cancel_orders, and update_bot_config without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly names the condition under which this tool is the wrong choice: it does not cancel resting orders, and it routes to cancel_orders for that. It also gives operative context for when to call it (a single considered change rather than a sequence) tied to the shared rate-limit budget.

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