stop_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive nature and the confirm gate. It does not say whether the instance record survives the kill, whether termination is graceful, or what happens if no matching process exists.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the destructive nature plus confirm requirement are front-loaded where an agent will see them before constructing arguments.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the minimum is conveyed: what it kills and the confirm gate. Missing post-condition (instance remains but stopped?), failure mode when nothing matches, and return/error shape leave it only adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'confirm' (must be true) and implies 'id' selects the instance whose command line matches exactly, which is useful added semantic. The exact-match semantics of id and any validation/format are still thin.

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: kills the javaw process matching this instance. That is more precise than a generic 'stop', and an agent can tell it apart from the list/get/create siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_instance, the closest ambiguous alternative.

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 gives one hard prerequisite ('requires confirm: true'), which is genuinely actionable. It never says when to choose this over delete_instance or launch_instance, nor what to do if the instance is not running, so selection guidance is only implied.

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