airstrings_variant_stop

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the change is deferred until the next airstrings_publish, the stop is irreversible (cannot restart), it can still be promoted afterwards, and it is refused on protected environments.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, and the primary effect (what stopping does to users) is front-loaded ahead of the state-transition caveats and the alternative-tool routing.

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 no output schema, stating 'Returns the updated experiment' is useful, and the irreversible state transition plus the protected-environment refusal cover the failure modes an agent needs before invoking this.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'key'. The description only restates scope ('one string key') without adding format, validation or example detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (stop) plus resource (a running A/B experiment) plus scope (one string key). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings airstrings_variant_set, airstrings_variant_promote and airstrings_variant_start, all of which are named or implied.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: use airstrings_variant_promote to keep a winning variant, airstrings_variant_set creates a new draft if you need one, and it is refused on protected environments. The when-not condition (protected env) and the alternatives are both stated.

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