mix_stop_peak_watch

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

Annotations carry unsafe, non-idempotent, but not destructive hints. The description adds beyond these by scoping the watch as 'process-local' and by explicitly stating the stop returns a 'final aggregate', which helps the agent understand the outcome and scope of the operation. It does not, however, detail consequences like error behavior on nonexistent watches.

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?

One tightly packed sentence: it states both the action and the return value with zero extraneous words. Structure is clear and fully front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential operation and scoping. It omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when the watch was already stopped, but overall it is sufficiently informative for a simple 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. While 'one process-local watch' implies the watch_id parameter identifies the watch to stop, the description does not explicitly map the watch_id parameter to that identity, nor does it clarify format or constraints beyond the schema regex.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('process-local watch'), and clarifies the returned artifact ('final aggregate'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mix_start_peak_watch and mix_get_peak_watch without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it pairs with mix_start_peak_watch or that it should be called only after a watch has been started, leaving the user to infer timing and selection context.

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