stop_service

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is a plain write operation with no billing impact and not destructive. This information helps the agent understand the tool's safety profile and side effects, though it could elaborate on reversibility or async behavior.

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 extremely concise, using four short sentences to cover purpose, authorization, behavioral traits, and parameter origin. Every sentence adds unique value, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 power-off tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, required permissions, behavioral safeguards, and parameter source. It could optionally mention the return value or asynchronous nature, but it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (service_id) with its description. The tool's description merely restates 'service_id from list_services,' adding no new meaning or context beyond what the schema offers.

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 (power off) and the target resource (service, specifying cloud VM or legacy VPS). It distinguishes from siblings like reboot_service and start_service by emphasizing it is a power-off operation, and clarifies it is not destructive, setting it apart from destroy_service or cancel_service.

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 mentions required scope (services:write) and indicates the parameter source (service_id from list_services). It implicitly guides when to use the tool (to power off a service) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like stop versus restart or shutdown scenarios.

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