Stop ZFS Scrub

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the '(sudo)' marker, which is genuine auth-requirement context the annotations do not convey, though it omits what state the scrub is left in afterwards.

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 short sentence with the operative verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every element 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 operation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential action and the sudo requirement. It stops short of describing post-stop state or the result of the call, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter 'pool' is already documented as 'Pool name'. The description adds no naming convention, format, or validity detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('in-progress scrub on a ZFS pool'), which naturally contrasts with the sibling zfs_run_scrub. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the stop-vs-start polarity makes the distinction unambiguous to an agent.

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?

Usage is implied by 'in-progress scrub' — call it when a scrub is running and you want it halted — but the description never states when to use this versus zfs_run_scrub or under what conditions stopping is appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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