stop_project

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals this is a mutating operation; the description adds context that it only affects the running project and not the editor, which is a behavioral nuance beyond the annotation's basic safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences with the primary action in the first and a clarifying boundary in the second. No wasted words, fully front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is stopped and what is not affected, providing enough context for an agent to invoke it 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?

With zero parameters, the description needs no parameter details. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description stays silent on parameters as expected.

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' and identifies the resource as the 'currently running Godot project', clearly distinguishing from launch_editor. The clarification about not affecting the editor further differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

It implicitly states when to use by clarifying that the editor is unaffected, which hints at the alternative of using launch_editor. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like run_project or pause_game, so it falls short of a full when/when-not list.

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