shelly_script_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two useful traits (returns 'was_running', and the call is audit-logged). However it says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens when the script is already stopped, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and parameter, with no filler. The doubled backticks around identifiers are minor markup noise rather than wasted content.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return value is not strictly required, and the audit-log note is a genuine addition. Still, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required 'device' parameter, an agent lacks enough to invoke this confidently in a multi-device environment.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains 'id' only and leaves the equally required 'device' parameter completely undefined — no format, identifier scheme, or example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop a script') and names the key parameter ('id'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling shelly_script_start. It does not explicitly reference siblings, but the verb alone makes the role unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., shelly_script_delete for removal, shelly_script_start for the inverse), and no prerequisite such as whether the script must currently be running. Usage is only implied by the name.

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