pcs_cluster_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 states the core effect—stopping the cluster stack—but does not mention that this is disruptive to cluster availability, whether sudo is needed (despite a sudo parameter existing), or what happens if the cluster is already stopped. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the object, and the underlying command efficiently.

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 disruptive operation with no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence description is under-specified. It does not explain cluster impact, prerequisites, expected behavior, or consequences, so an agent cannot fully assess what invoking this tool will do.

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?

All five parameters already have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100% and the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the underlying command, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop'), a clear object ('the cluster stack on the node'), and names the underlying command ('pcs cluster stop'), so the agent can understand the action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like pcs_cluster_start, though the inverse relationship is fairly obvious.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcs_cluster_start, pcs_cluster_status, or node-level operations like pcs_node_standby. The intended use case is only implied by the action itself; no prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions are stated.

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