mixer_stop_peak_watch

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully clarifies that the stop 'changes no project state' and that the watch stays readable afterwards. That is real lifecycle context beyond the annotation flags. It does not explain whether stopping an already-stopped watch is an error (relevant given idempotentHint=false), leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and the return value, then the state and lifecycle consequences. No filler.

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 one-parameter terminal action with an output schema, the description covers action, state impact, and downstream usability, so return-format detail is correctly omitted. Only the repeat-call/idempotency behavior is left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents the watch_id format and its origin tool. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop a peak watch') plus the effect of stopping ('return its final per-track aggregate'). This clearly separates it from mixer_start_peak_watch and mixer_get_peak_watch, which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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?

'Stop a peak watch early' tells the agent the condition for using this rather than letting a watch finish, and the note that a stopped watch remains readable via mixer_plan_gain_staging clarifies the downstream workflow. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer mixer_get_peak_watch or mixer_start_peak_watch, but the context is clear.

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