panelica_server_post_v1_server_services_name_stop

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

Annotations already mark this as mutating and non-idempotent, but the description adds valuable context beyond those flags: 'Mutating: changes server state' makes the consequence explicit, and 'Required scopes: services:stop, server:write' discloses authorization requirements. 'Use with caution' further signals operational risk. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is tightly structured and efficient: a one-line purpose, a warning, the HTTP endpoint, category, scopes, and mutation note. Every line adds distinct information without redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward service-stop operation, the description covers endpoint, category, required scopes, and the state-changing effect. The body parameter's purpose is not explained, but the schema acknowledges it is not statically declared. No output schema exists, so return-value details are absent, but they are not critical for invoking this action correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters: 'name' as the service name and 'body' as an optional request body. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the agent can rely on the schema. The body parameter remains vague, though the schema itself defers to API docs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stops a specific service.' This clearly identifies the action and target, and the verb 'stop' inherently differentiates it from sibling tools like start and restart. The tool name and title reinforce the same meaning without adding confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start or restart. 'Use with caution' is a warning, not usage context, and no preconditions, effects on dependent services, or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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