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

Annotations only tell us this is non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds the real behavioral payload: running processes are interrupted, files survive, public ports are suspended while stopped, and the machine reaches state=stopped. That is exactly the consequence-level detail an agent needs before calling a stop operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key side effect, with no filler or repetition. The final return-value sentence is largely redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only slight bloat.

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 single-parameter stop tool with an output schema and annotation coverage of the safety profile, the description supplies everything remaining: the precondition to save work, what is retained versus interrupted, port behavior, and the resulting state. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that "name" accepts a computer id from create/list or a display name from info. The description merely says "the supplied name" and adds no format or disambiguation value beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Stop a running Celesto Cloud computer") and immediately delimits it from the destructive sibling by noting it interrupts processes "while retaining its files." An agent can distinguish this from cloud_computer_delete or cloud_computer_exec without opening any schema.

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?

"Save in-memory work first" gives a clear precondition for use, and the file-retention and port-suspension notes communicate the stopping state an agent should expect. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly (e.g., "use cloud_computer_delete to remove permanently"), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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