postfader_stop_run

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that completed project changes are not rolled back. However, it does not clarify whether an in-flight run is cancelled or whether the stop can be reversed by a later continue, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the crucial negative scope. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, so 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 simple one-parameter mutation with annotations, a complete schema, and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is not stating whether a currently running operation is affected, but sibling tool names (postfader_continue_run, postfader_execute_run) partially fill this context.

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 100%, with run_id documented as 'Production Run identifier retained in the local journal' and a pattern constraint. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so the schema fully carries the semantic load; the baseline score 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?

The description uses a precise verb ('Stop') and a specific resource ('future run operations'), and immediately adds a key differentiator: 'without undoing completed project changes.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fl_undo, postfader_execute_run, and postfader_continue_run even without inspecting their schemas.

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 establishes clear context: use this when you want to halt future run activity while preserving completed work. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'without undoing' clause implicitly contrasts with rollback operations, providing sufficient situational guidance.

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