wave_stop_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and endpoint. It does not disclose whether stopping is idempotent, what happens to the stream's state, whether the operation can be reversed by starting again, or what errors occur for an unknown or already-stopped stream.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, object, and endpoint with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter operation.

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 tool, the core action and parameter are covered, but the lack of annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral notes leave gaps around expected results and error semantics. The description is minimal but not grossly insufficient for a straightforward stop operation.

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%; the schema already names stream_id as 'The UUID of the stream to stop' with format and pattern constraints. The description adds only the 'active' qualifier, which is marginal context, 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Stop' with a clear resource ('an active stream') and the required identifier, and adds the exact HTTP endpoint. It is clearly distinct from siblings like wave_start_stream or wave_list_streams by action, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 word 'active' implies this is only applicable to currently running streams, and the stop action itself indicates when it is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, how to confirm a stream is active, or which sibling alternatives might be relevant.

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