stop_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether stopping is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related resources, or has side effects like analytics termination. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'stop' entails behaviorally, what happens to the stream post-stop, or what (if anything) is returned. Given the complexity of stopping an active process, more context is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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 'Stop the current active stream' clearly states the action (stop) and target resource (current active stream). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_stream' (opposite action) and 'get_current_stream' (read-only). However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'active' or differentiate from other stream management tools like 'update_stream_settings'.

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 description implies usage when there's an active stream to stop, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_stream_settings' for modifying rather than stopping. No prerequisites, error conditions, or sibling tool comparisons are mentioned.

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