stop_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial nuance that a normal stop persists a checkpoint while force kills the process immediately, which changes the data-loss calculus. It still doesn't say whether a stopped job can be resumed from that checkpoint or what permissions are needed.

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 short sentences, the default behavior front-loaded and the escalation path second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the destructive semantics plus the graceful/force tradeoff are covered. The remaining gap is identifying what `job` should contain, which an agent must guess before it can call the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does an excellent job on `force` (what it does, when it is appropriate) but says nothing about `job` — no hint whether it takes an ID, name, or the value returned by list_jobs/create_job. Partial compensation for a zero-coverage schema lands at 3.

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+resource ('Stop a job') and immediately qualifies the mode ('gracefully, saves a checkpoint first'), so an agent can tell it apart from start_job and from a hard kill. It does not name any sibling explicitly, which keeps it just shy 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?

Gives a concrete condition for the risky path: force is 'only for jobs stuck and ignoring a normal stop,' which is an explicit when-not guidance and steers the agent to the default first. No mention of checking get_job/get_job_log before stopping, so the alternative-routing is incomplete but the primary usage rule is clear.

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