Stop an audio stream

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying the blast radius: only the targeted stream stops, other streams on the call keep running, and the call itself is unaffected. It does not cover error behavior (invalid/already-stopped stream_id) or auth requirements.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with the endpoint and the two scope caveats packed in without padding. Every clause 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 two-param destructive operation with no output schema, the definition covers target, scope of effect, and the precondition that the call be live. Gaps remain around failure modes (nonexistent or already-terminated stream) and what the caller gets back, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The URL template maps the two inputs to call_uuid and stream_id roles, which is modest added value, but it gives no format, source, or validity semantics (how to obtain a stream_id, that it must belong to that call, or the allowed character patterns already in 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 verb (Stop) and resource (one audio stream) with scope qualifiers: it acts on a single stream on a LIVE call, not the call or all streams. The REST endpoint (DELETE /Call/{uuid}/Stream/{stream_id}/) makes the target unambiguous and separates it from call-wide (end_call) and conference-scoped (stop_audio_to_conference_member) siblings.

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?

It gives clear context for when this applies: a live call with at least one running stream that you want to tear down selectively, while the call continues. It does not name an explicit alternative or state when-not to use it (e.g., to stop all streams or end the call), so routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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