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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: all disk contents are deleted, billing stops except for the already-started hour, data should be copied off first, and the action is irreversible. It also reinforces idempotency by noting that terminating an already-ended machine changes nothing.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and consequence. Every sentence adds useful operational context, including the billing caveat and the data-copy warning.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential consequences: data loss, irreversibility, billing, and idempotency. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit instance_id semantics or permission requirements.

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 single required parameter is instance_id, but the description never explicitly explains it or its expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only indirectly refers to 'a machine' and does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: stop a machine now and delete it with everything on disk. It is very clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling schedule_removal tool.

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 by saying to copy results off first with scp or rsync, and warns that the action cannot be undone. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as schedule_removal.

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