Set streaming status to ended

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations don't carry — a 100 req/10s per-shop rate limit — but says nothing about what 'ended' does to an in-progress stream or whether the change is reversible.

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 tight sentences with no padding; the rate-limit constraint and the purpose are both front-loaded. Slightly odd ordering (limit before purpose) but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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?

With 5 parameters, no required fields, a nested payload object, three mutually exclusive body-delivery options, and no output schema, the description is thin — it never explains the services vs payload vs payload_file choice or what a successful call returns. Annotations and the schema carry most of the load, making this adequate but not complete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, and payload_file including their mutual-exclusion rules. The description's phrase 'for specified services' only loosely gestures at the services/payload input, adding no format or precedence detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Sets ... to ended') and resource ('streaming status') with scope ('for specified services'), so an agent understands the operation immediately. It does not name or differentiate itself from the obvious sibling start_streaming or the read-side get_streaming_status, leaving the routing to name inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the complementary start_streaming / get_streaming_status siblings. The only guardrail ('confirm: set true only when the user asked for exactly this action') lives in the schema, not the description.

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