StopApiTrace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that breakpoint deletion occurs as part of stopping, but it omits what happens to the captured trace data (e.g., whether it remains retrievable via GetApiTraceLog) and does not clarify the 'optionally' framing against a delete flag that defaults to true.

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 efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional side effect trailing. There is no wasted wording, though the extreme brevity leaves room the definition could have profitably used.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the lifecycle impact of stopping a trace, whether the log survives, or the trace_id's origin, leaving the agent under-informed about 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% for both parameters. The description partially compensates for 'delete_breakpoints' by mentioning breakpoint deletion, but it hides that this flag defaults to true, and 'trace_id' is left entirely undocumented as to source or format. With both parameters undocumented and a default left invisible, this falls below the baseline.

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 running API trace') plus a secondary action ('optionally delete its breakpoints'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly name the trace-family siblings (StartApiTrace, RunApiTrace, GetApiTraceLog) to differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The qualifier 'running' implies the precondition that a trace must already be active, which hints at the StartApiTrace → StopApiTrace pairing. However, it never says when to use this versus related stop tools like DebugStop, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites explicitly.

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