postfader_review_stop

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

The description meaningfully augments the annotations by explaining that the operation is non-destructive to completed work and only halts future review activity. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, adding useful behavioral nuance without contradiction.

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 entire description is one well-crafted sentence that front-loads the key behavior and immediately states the crucial non-destructive qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient for invocation. It could be slightly more complete by contrasting with related siblings such as postfader_review_delete or postfader_stop_run, but that gap is minor given the clear action and parameter semantics.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Review Session whose future work should stop.'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the tool description does not need to add parameter detail; it adds no new meaning beyond echoing the schema.

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 states a specific action ('stop') and resource ('future review work'), and explicitly clarifies that completed project changes are preserved. This clearly differentiates it from potentially destructive siblings like postfader_review_delete or undo-like tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when review work should stop but prior changes must remain intact. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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