arcane_stop_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'stop a container' without revealing side effects, whether the action is graceful, or what happens to the container's state, which is a significant gap for a state-changing 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 three words and is immediately comprehensible, with no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too terse to be genuinely informative.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full consequences of stopping a container. It does not describe the return value, whether the operation is reversible, or how it differs from restart/delete in practical terms.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (containerId and environmentId) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (stop) and resource (container), and it is distinct from sibling tools like start and restart. However, it is minimal and doesn't specify the container's state or usage scope, so it doesn't fully differentiate beyond the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use stop versus delete or restart, and no description of prerequisite conditions (e.g., container must be running). The description simply states the action, offering no selection guidance.

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