panelica_python_apps_post_v1_python_apps_id_stop

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly states 'Mutating: changes server state' and lists the required 'apps:write' scope, which is useful authorization and side-effect context. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could elaborate on consequences such as interruption of running requests.

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 compact and well-structured: action, HTTP endpoint, category, required scope, and mutation flag are each presented on their own line with no filler. Every line earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations available, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: method, path, required id, scopes, and state-change warning. Minor gaps remain around what the optional body should contain and the expected response, but these are not critical for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the required 'id' path parameter and optional body are already documented in the schema. The description adds no significant parameter semantics, which is acceptable under the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 action ('Stop app') and the resource category ('Python Apps'), reinforced by the explicit endpoint 'POST /v1/python/apps/:id/stop'. It is clear what the tool does and distinguishable from obvious siblings like start/restart, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 alternatives such as start, restart, or delete. The description provides operational constraints (required scope, mutation flag) but not selection criteria or prerequisites.

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