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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries part of the behavioral disclosure. It adds the important detail that the image is kept, distinguishing stop from delete. However, it does not disclose what happens to the container state, whether the operation is reversible, or whether the container is removed entirely.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key non-destructive detail in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is terse but missing critical context. The schema marks no parameters as required, and the description does not clarify whether 'project' is mandatory. It also omits behavior when the project is not running, which could cause an agent to call the tool incorrectly.

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 schema has one parameter, 'project', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description mentions 'a running project's container' but never explicitly explains that the 'project' parameter is the identifier of the project to stop, nor whether it is required. This leaves an agent to infer the parameter's meaning and necessity.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and a specific resource ('a running project's container'), and the parenthetical '(keep the image)' clearly differentiates it from destructive siblings like delete_project. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 when to use the tool: when a project is running and you want to stop it while preserving its image. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like start_project, restart_project, or delete_project, nor does it state when not to use it.

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