Stop background job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's destructive. The description adds context about Force-stop and child process tree, which is moderately helpful but does not elaborate on reversibility, error handling, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded, clear, and concise. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 the single required parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention what happens if the jobId is invalid or non-existent, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating 'by job ID', but it does not clarify how to obtain the jobId or its format beyond what the schema already provides (uuid). The added value is minimal.

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 action (Force-stop), the resource (background job and its child process tree), and the method (by job ID). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_job and job_status.

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 implies usage for stopping a running job, possibly forcefully, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., job_status for checking status, start_job to begin). It lacks prerequisites or conditions for appropriate use.

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