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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the disruption (server goes offline until restarted), the ACPI-vs-power-cut semantics, the timeout-triggered hard stop, and the data-loss risk of hard. That is exactly the behavioral context a destructiveHint flag cannot convey.

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 warning is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries new information (escalation behavior, data-loss risk, endpoint). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects and safety profile. It does not address edge cases such as stopping an already-stopped server or whether the call blocks until completion, which would matter for correct invocation sequencing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it states soft is the default and, critically, that supplying a timeout causes a hard stop to follow if the soft stop does not complete. That interaction between timeout and stop_type is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

Specific verb (stop) plus resource (running server), with scope stated up front as DISRUPTIVE. It explicitly contrasts itself with upcloud_start_server, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like upcloud_restart_server without opening a 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?

It names the follow-on alternative (upcloud_start_server) and explains the soft/hard selection logic including the timeout escalation path, which is clear usage context. It stops short of an explicit exclusion, e.g. 'use upcloud_restart_server if you intend to bring the server back up immediately', leaving one sibling relationship to inference.

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