stop_experiment

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not say whether stopping is reversible, what happens to live traffic/allocations, or that a stopped experiment cannot be restarted.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure 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 one-parameter mutation tool, the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameter, so the description covers the minimum. It still leaves out the operational consequences of stopping an experiment, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent call.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the ID format or where to obtain it, but none is required given the schema already documents it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('running A/B test experiment'), so the agent immediately knows the action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling start_experiment or from update_experiment, though the pairing is inferable.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as start_experiment or update_experiment, and no prerequisites (e.g., the experiment must be running, or what happens if already stopped). The only contextual cue is the word 'running' embedded in the purpose statement.

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