Stop an active ambient run by providing its run ID. Include an optional note or decision maker to record why the run was ended.
Stop an ambient run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| decided_by | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not say whether stopping is terminal or reversible, whether it requires permissions, or what side effects it has on the ambient run or related workflows.
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 sentence is short, direct, and easy to parse, with the action front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it functions almost as a label rather than a useful definition, making this under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 lifecycle-mutating tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It lacks parameter roles, preconditions, side effects, and any direction on when this tool is the correct choice.
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 has 0% description coverage and the description names no parameters. The agent must infer that run_id identifies the target run and guess the meaning and format of note and decided_by, which the description does nothing to clarify.
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 the specific verb 'stop' with the resource 'ambient run', clearly identifying the operation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yaaif_ambient_run_pause, yaaif_ambient_run_resume, and yaaif_ambient_run_reject. However, it does not explain what 'stopping' means in terms of run lifecycle, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pause or reject, nor any prerequisites or consequences. The description simply states the action with no contextual direction, which is the 'no guidance' case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.