stop_app

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, the description adds meaningful context: it waits up to wait_seconds, MCP handles all requests, and critically clarifies that 'stopped' means stop requests accepted, not verified teardown — important caveats beyond the annotations. It does not state required permissions or what happens to in-flight traffic, keeping it below 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the caveats. No padding; each sentence carries information. Slightly telegraphic but efficient.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and only 40% parameter description coverage, the description covers the teardown-verification caveat well but omits permission requirements, effect on running instances, and the meaning of the bare application_id/project_id/service_names parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 40%, so the schema documents desk_url and wait_seconds but leaves application_id, project_id, and service_names bare. The description reinforces wait_seconds' default of 20 and the 'all vs selected' semantics of service_names, but does not explain application_id/project_id relationships. Marginal addition over the schema, not full compensation.

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 all or selected services as one operation.' This distinguishes it from start_app and deploy_app/update_app siblings by making clear it is the stop action and that it can act on all services or a selected subset.

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 (stopping services on an application) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., start_app for the inverse, delete_path for removal). The 'all or selected' phrasing hints at the service_names parameter's role without spelling out conditions.

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