coolify_stop_service

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation as '[DESTRUCTIVE]' and notes 'causes downtime', which is helpful. However, it doesn't clarify whether the action is reversible, whether data might be lost, or what happens to dependent resources (e.g., attached storage). The description adds some value beyond the schema but could be more detailed for a destructive 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?

The description is very short—two sentences—and front-loads the destructive warning. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly more detail on parameters or behavior would not hurt conciseness significantly.

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?

Given the tool is a 3-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main purpose and the most important effect (downtime). However, it omits return value info (e.g., does it return success status?), error conditions, or idempotency behavior. For a destructive tool, these gaps reduce completeness.

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. The description doesn't add any information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'uuid', 'confirm', 'docker_cleanup' are already described). No enrichment of parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the verb 'Stop', the resource 'Coolify service', and the effect 'Causes downtime'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'coolify_stop_application' and 'coolify_stop_database' by using 'service' in the name and description, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like pausing or scaling down. It doesn't mention prerequisites, ordering of operations, or situations where stopping is inappropriate (e.g., during a deployment). The only usage hint is the [DESTRUCTIVE] tag and 'causes downtime', which is basic.

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