modal_app_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is permanent and affects running containers, which is useful context. However, it does not mention reversibility, restart options, or potential side effects on app data, leaving some ambiguity about what 'permanently stop' entails beyond container termination.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the action and effect without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple stop operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core purpose and consequence, and the schema covers parameter details. While it doesn't explain return values or error behaviors, these are not essential for such a straightforward action.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't clarify the 'env' parameter or the expected format of 'appIdentifier'. Since the schema already provides these details, the description does not need to repeat them, but it adds no additional insight.

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 tool's action: 'Permanently stop an App' and its effect: 'terminate its running containers.' The verb 'stop' with the resource 'App' is specific, and the mention of 'permanently' and 'containers' distinguishes it from sibling tools like modal_container_stop, which targets individual containers.

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?

The description implies usage: use this when you want to stop an App and its containers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among the sibling tools, such as modal_container_stop for stopping a single container. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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