services_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'confirm' is required, which is potentially important safety information, but this conflicts with the input schema where confirm is optional and defaults to false. It does not describe side effects, whether the stoppage is reversible, or what confirmation actually does.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary prose. However, the parameter section is sparse and the inaccurate 'confirm: Required' note prevents it from being an ideal concise definition.

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 mutating service-control tool with no annotations, the description is under-specified. It should clarify confirmation semantics, side effects, and when to stop instead of restart or reload. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but operational context is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Service name' for the service parameter, which is minimal, and 'confirm: Required,' which is misleading because the schema marks confirm as optional with a default. It does not explain what confirm means or what values it accepts.

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 the action ('Stop') and the resource ('a service') clearly, and the action verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like services_start, services_restart, and services_reload. It is slightly generic because it does not specify what kind of service or scope is involved, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus services_restart, services_reload, or services_get. The description implies usage through the verb 'Stop,' but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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