komodo_stop_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says it stops a deployment and returns a stop confirmation. It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, side effects, whether the stop is graceful or forced, or whether it is reversible.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), and the description covers the parameter and a return hint. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks usage context and behavioral safety details that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the single 'deployment' parameter is the Deployment ID to stop, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 states a specific verb (Stop) and resource (running deployment), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like run_deployment, create_deployment, and delete_deployment. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Stop a running deployment,' but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as delete_deployment or run_deployment. The agent must infer the context from the name and siblings.

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