stop-application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('halts the application and makes it unavailable'), which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the stop is reversible, side effects on related resources, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and effect without unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage context, and expected outcomes, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Resource UUID.' The description adds minimal value by specifying 'using its UUID,' which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional meaning like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already covers.

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 specific action ('Stop'), target resource ('a specific application'), and method ('using its UUID'), with the effect 'halts the application and makes it unavailable.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'start-application' and 'restart-application' by specifying the stop action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart-application' or 'update-application' is provided. The description implies usage for stopping an application but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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