ptz_patrol_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the core stop action but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, behavior when no patrol is active, or prerequisites such as PTZ capability.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The parameter notes are relevant and non-redundant, adding acquisition instructions without unnecessary prose.

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?

With an output schema present and both parameters clearly explained, the tool is callable. However, it lacks guidance on preconditions, such as whether a patrol must be active or whether the camera must support PTZ, leaving some edge-case ambiguity.

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 compensate, and it does. It explains that host accepts a console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId format, and tells the agent exactly how to obtain camera_id via list_cameras.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop') and the resource ('current PTZ patrol on a camera'), with a specific verb and object. It is differentiated from ptz_patrol_start by the opposite action, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 phrase 'current PTZ patrol' implies this tool should be used when a patrol is already running, and the source for camera_id is provided. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, such as noting this pairs with ptz_patrol_start.

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