Kill a running Wiro task

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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`, but the description adds valuable context by stating that it 'changes remote state' and 'can discard in-progress work.' This goes beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what kind of destructive impact occurs. The description does not contradict annotations and provides useful specifics about side effects.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, noting side effects, and providing usage differentiation. It is tightly written with no filler or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's action, side effects, and when to use it versus the alternative, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Annotations handle idempotency and destructive intent, and the description fills in the behavioral nuance (discard of in-progress work). The definition is complete for this 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?

The input schema already describes both `taskid` and `tasktoken` with full coverage (100%). The description does not add detailed parameter semantics, but it implicitly conveys that either parameter can be used to identify the task, which is already clear from the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat parameter info.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to stop a task that is already running. It uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('task') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling tool `cancel_task`. This eliminates ambiguity about what the tool does and which situation it targets.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use `cancel_task` for queued tasks, while this tool is for running tasks. It provides a clear binary condition and names the alternative tool, leaving no room for incorrect selection based on task state.

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