db_stop_migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and return value but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or whether stopping is destructive. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 description is concise and front-loaded: the main action is in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns structure is minimal and clear. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant content.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool, and the description together with the output schema covers the essential calling contract. However, it lacks any guidance on preconditions or implications of stopping a migration, which would be important given no annotations are present.

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%, so the description is needed to clarify parameters. 'The database ID or label' adds useful meaning beyond the schema property name, but it lacks detail on how to identify whether an ID or label is accepted or where to find it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Stop an ongoing database migration.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like db_start_migration, db_get_migration_status, and db_analyze_database_migration_status by naming the exact action.

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 word 'ongoing' implies that the tool should only be used when a migration is currently in progress, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the agent to check migration status first. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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