arcane_stop_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Stop/bring down' is ambiguous—it could mean a simple stop or a full teardown (like 'docker compose down' which removes containers/networks). No side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

Single concise sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but somewhat overly terse, sacrificing necessary behavioral details for brevity.

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?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to provide more context. It only covers the basic action, leaving questions about arguments, effects, return value, and edge cases unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter information. While the names environmentId and projectId are self-explanatory, the relationship between them and how they identify the target is not clarified.

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/bring down') and the target ('Docker Compose project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arcane_delete_project or arcane_restart_project.

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 tool vs alternatives. It is implied that this is for a project-level stop, but there is no mention of when to prefer it over arcane_stop_container or arcane_delete_project.

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