user_service_stop_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it never says the stop is irreversible, whether balance is refunded, what permissions (admin acting on behalf of user_id) are needed, or that a non-confirmed call only returns a preview. The only mutation hint is the word 'stop' and the HTTP POST path.

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?

Very short and the endpoint is front-loaded, but a quarter of the text is low-value generated metadata (tag 'Услуги пользователей', spec 'user') that does not help an agent invoke the tool.

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 destructive, unannotated mutation with no output schema, the description should explain the effect of stopping a service and the confirm/preview behavior. It explains none of this, leaving gaps that the schema alone does not fill.

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 100%, so the schema already documents body.user_service_id, confirm, and user_id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when structured data does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('POST /user/service/stop', 'Остановить услугу пользователя'), so the basic action is discernible. However, it is little more than the tool name restated in Russian plus routing metadata, and it gives no scope (per-user, per-service-instance) or distinction from siblings like user_service_change_post or admin_user_service_stop_post.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. change vs. stop vs. withdraw). The requirement for confirm:true exists only in the schema, not in the description. The agent gets no routing help from the prose.

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